Columnist Cal Thomas thinks that restrictions on political speech in churches likely is unconstitutional. But he thinks that the law has “done churches a favor, however inadvertent, by protecting most of them from the downside of electioneering.” Thomas wrote: “Whether or not the law is repealed, churches and ministers would do better to keep their attention focused on the things above, rather than the things below, because politics can be the ultimate temptation and pollute a far superior and life-changing message.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
125 Comments
Amen.
I have to agree with Cal. Churches and ministers should stay out of electioneering, that includes invite candidates to speak from their dias.
I have to agree with Cal. Churches and ministers should stay out of electioneering, that includes invite candidates to speak from their dias.
There are many ministers in this town claiming there is no separation of church and state. They obviously have never seen a state sponsored/run church such as the early settlers fled.
If a church wants to get involved in politics, let them–and tax them like the business they are. Simple.
What I find funny here is the fact that liberal black churches have been “politicking” their liberal – Marxist – Socialist candidates from the pulpits for YEARS – and NOW some conservitive pastors decide to join in ?? Oh lets all just bring the entire planet to a screeching stand-still – Mr. Phillip Brownlee has something he’d like to say — Oh brother — other than that – I agree with Cal Thomas – Christians keep our eyes on Jesus and let the secular world have their hissie fit – can any one say: 1st Amendment: – CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion [ie: Catholicism] OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I wonder, is having a tax exempt status a constitutional right?
Christians are not taking money from you (the taxpayer) to build and run their churches – they are built and run by donations from their own members
No, AmWay, a tax exemption is not a constitutional right. The argument that is advanced, as I understand it, is that the statutory and regulatory conditions which are a part of the exemption scheme act to infringe upon the First Amendment “freedom of speech” rights of the pastor, as well as impinging through government action the church’s freedom of religion.
VT –
Is not conditioning that tax exemption upon restrictions on otherwise protected speech under the 1st amendment – in effect, punishing otherwise protected speech by jerking a tax exemption – in itself a restraint on speech?
And dadman’s point is well-taken. The only churches who are regularly threatened with pulling tax-exempt status are conservative churches. Yet liberal churches have a long history of political activism; to this day (and we saw it this year) Democratic candidates make the pilgramage to traditionally black churches as part of their political campaign. Those churches effectively endorse political candidates and positions regularly, yet I see no calls to pull those tax-exemptions.
Liberals, your hypocricy is showing. Again. And again, and again . . . . .
on display – again and again
The sad part is that by endorsing a candidate for any office, the church then ends up in the pocket of that candidate.
And is it just the opinion of the minister, I’m thinking of Wichita’s Mark Hulit, or of the congregation? Is it voted on in open session? Just askin’
Also, did anyone notice the sun rising in the west this morning. It must have to have me agree with anything Cal Thomas says.
Dennis
GMC, I understand your point. The best I can offer is that the restriction on political activities by 501(c)(3) organizations (one type of which is a church) is a condition of not necessarily their tax exemption (a church could elect to be exempted under 501(c)(4), for example, from income taxation) but for the deductibility of the contributions to the (c)(3) organization by the donors. The underlying theory to this is to allow this deduction to the donors in order for the (c)(3) organization (as originally contemplated, charities) to perform societal services which, in the absence of the existence of the organization, would/might need to be done by the government. The original 1939 Code exemption has expanded over time to include not only charities, but educational institutions, scientific research entities, e.g., as well.
Thus, allowing the pastor to endorse a candidate does not necessarily threaten the tax-exempt status of a church in its entirety, as the church (or other (c)(3) organization would likely be able to qualify as income tax exempt under other provisions of section 501 of the Code); it threatens the tax-exempt status of the church under 501(c)(3), which would result in donations received by it to not be deductible for income tax purposes by the donors. The same result would occur if, for example, the head of a private school would, in his or her official capacity, endorse a political candidate.
Don’t know that this makes a lot of sense, but it’s the best I have right now.
Stated another way, the presumption under tax law is always in favor of taxability (or, in the case of a (c)(3), not only in favor of taxability of income but also against the nondeductibility of donations), and if an exemption is granted, it is to be strictly construed. Thus, by electing to proceed under 501(c)(3), the organization agrees to abide by the rules; if it doesn’t want to so do, it may elect to proceed under, e.g., 501(c)(4), and the organization would still not be subject to income taxation, but its donors would lose the deduction for gifts.
“”"The sad part is that by endorsing a candidate for any office, the church then ends up in the pocket of that candidate”"”
============
SOME ‘CHURCHES’ WANT TO BE IN THE POCKET OF THE CANDIDATE – IE: MONEY AND POWER – REV-RIGHT / OBAMA ?? $$$$$
There are many twists and turns in any IRS policy… here is the information if anyone cares to peruse:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
VT –
You’re reminding me yet again of why I avoided Tax in law school like the plague!
I don’t doubt any of that; you know the tax code far better than I (which could be read as damning with faint praise, BTW!!); but the implication of same is still valid. Political silence is conditioned upon tax exemption (whether for the church itself or its members is a distinction without a difference in that sense).
And liberal churches routinely ignore that distinction without criticism or ominous visits from the IRS.
But IOKIYAD. Riiight.
I like what Rick Warren did a month ago with the interview between McCain and Obama – his opening statement was: “we are not saying that we do not believe in separation of church and state, but what we ARE saying is that we DO believe in faith and politics” – - please understand that your ‘politics’ is simply the out-growth or reflection of your faith, whatever your faith might be – even if you BELIEVE that no God exists
To make a law on tax exemption that prohibits freedom of speech, would in my unqualified opinion, be unconstitutional.
The question is whether churches and church leaders can speak out on moral issues, not political issues. These pastors rightly claim moral issues as church territory, ever since John the Baptist.
. . .
“If a candidate supports something that is evil and wicked from a biblical perspective, then I have the right to call out the wickedness, and I have the right to say this is what this person stands for — this is wrong. . . . The issue is not ‘Are we legislating morality?’ This issue is ‘Whose morality are we legislating?’”
. . . Rev. Ron Johnson, Jr., senior associate pastor at Living Stones Church in Crown Point, IN, joining the Pulpit Freedom Sunday campaign in endorsing Sen. McCain over pro-abortion Obamanation, claiming moral issues as church territory
(Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:18; Luke 3:19-20)
Just because I (as a Christian) have a citizenship sealed in eternity (Heaven bound) does not mean that my citizenship as an American is invalid – tiz still valid – AND I WILL VOTE – DAMN-IT ! ! ! !
My understanding of it, as a civil libertarian, basically breaks down to a simple principle: individuals can endorse anyone they want. Tax law is silent on that.
The issue is whether a church is being used a political instrument rather than as a charitable organization. How many of you would be comfortable with, say, the Red Cross distributing voter guides? Moreover, churches are perfectly free to address to pressing issues of the day, even those with decidely political overtones, if they simply refrain from engaging in the political system.
It’s not an easy law to violate.
WE ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained;
and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. — George Washington
Also — WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablish a form of government for their safety and happiness — CAN I GET AN AMEN ! ! ! !
I agree. The “church” should be more focused on preaching, teaching, and loving.
I don’t have a problem with certain social issues being addressed and talked about in church as they are relevant to us as Christians today.
That alone is enough for most people to figure out who actually to vote for based on where they stand.
You don’t need to say explicitly that you should vote for X because of Y and party Q….
I believe Nathan and I are in perfect agreement, for a change.
REALLY !!! – the line between candidates are so THICK these days – when people start talking about the ‘undecided voter’ I’m wondering if they should even vote at all – just get out of the way — PLEASE !!!!!!!
Some of these churches seem to have abandoned the spiritual world and become PACs, and should probably be treated as such.
In the not-too-distant past, corporate interests literally bought churches and paid ministers to preach an anti-union message to their workers so they wouldn’t have to pay them fairly. Is that similar to what the political conservatives have done to evangelical churches? If that’s the case, maybe they aren’t actually churches anymore, but an arm of the party, and therefore subject to the same tax laws.
“churchs being used a political instrument”
===============
REALLY Rage !!!! I wouldn’t mind seeing some of these liberal/Marxist-toating/Obama preaching ‘churches’ getting their tax exempt status jerked – if anyone deserves that – they do — peace to all – amen
Fine. If churches want to be in politics, TAX THEM!
Hey Jed – I don’t think you’ll see real churches doing with McCain what liberal black churches do with Obama – I think the real churches did this ‘political Sunday’ thing just to force a point – just as the Eagles reaction to this issue tells me that they were succesful in making that point
“Fine. If churches want to be in politics, TAX THEM!”
===============
Ok !! – tell me what your address is so we can make sure you are sending in your money
REALLY Rage !!!! I wouldn’t mind seeing some of these liberal/Marxist-toating/Obama preaching ‘churches’ getting their tax exempt status jerked – if anyone deserves that – they do — peace to all – amen.
Call the IRS. But note that there’s a big difference between preaching liberation theology, and politicking.
And have facts at your disposal (unlike GMC). Be prepared to point out specific violations like, say, these:
Today the Maggot Punks filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service concerning illegal campaign activities involving the multi-million dollar churches Immanual Baptist and Central Christian.
In documents obtained by the Maggot Punks it was uncovered that both Immanual Baptist Church and Central Christian Church violated their tax exempt status by assisting and organizing a campaign for State Senator Peggy Palmer. Senator Palmer is a reknowned conservative and a member of Central Christian Church.
The Maggot Punks have previously filed IRS complaints concerning Operation Save America for their endorsement of Carlos Mayans. Past complaints were also filed against Spirit One Christian Center for their use of church property to urge people to vote against Governor Kathleen Sebelius. It is the hope of the Maggot Punks that the IRS will objectively observe the evidence presented to them and revoke the tax exempt status for the aforementioned churches and make them comply with federal laws limiting tax exempt organizations to non-political activity.
http://www.maggotpunks.com/2005/2005-02-10.htm
LOOKS LIKE THE WAR IS ON – It’ll get worse before it gets better – peace
You mean, churches shouldn;t be used like this:
“In his stump speeches across the country, Obama essentially asks audiences to take a leap of faith in his candidacy, asking them to trust “their better judgment” and “what’s in your gut” to trust that they should choose a man untested by the many fires burning through Washington. In his speech today, he made that call more openly, using the parable of Jericho in the Bible and King’s legacy of leading bus boycotts and marches and speaking out against Vietnam, to tell voters they should trust themselves to take a leap of faith and vote for his candidacy.”
Obama speaking at the church of Martin Luther King.
You mean, like that?
You mean, churches shouldn;t be used like this:
“NEW YORK (BP)–Former President Bill Clinton criticized the Southern Baptist iVoteValues.com voter-awareness initiative Aug. 29, saying that the values debate should not be framed around the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
“[P]olitics and political involvement dictated by faith is not the exclusive province of the right wing in America,” he said to applause at New York City’s Riverside Church.
Clinton’s appearance helped promote Mobilization 2004, an interfaith coalition created to help promote liberal causes during the election. It is sponsored by Riverside Church and its pastor, James A. Forbes Jr., who spoke at this year’s Democratic National Convention”
you mean, like that?
My position, stated earlier
“littlejohn
Posted October 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
I have to agree with Cal. Churches and ministers should stay out of electioneering, that includes invite candidates to speak from their dias”
Continues.
Daddyboy,
Interesting how each church claims they are the real deal and any that disagree with them are not “real” churches. It wasn’t all that long ago in historical terms that Catholics and Protestants were selling each other into slavery, Puritans were boring the tongues of Quakers, Episcopalians were hanging Puritans, and everybody was burning Baptists and Methodists. Seems there are a lot of you christian reactionaries that want to take us back to the good old days of religious warfare. Nothing quite as exhilarating as an old-fashioned witch burning, eh?
MAGGOT-PUNK – “Congratulations, you have managed to find the sole source of liberal news in Wichita. The Maggot Punks (a name generously given to us by the people we report on) is your source for coverage of radical fundamentalism, extremism and general nuttery in Wichita with a special focus on the notorious criminal group, Operation Rescue.”
=================
the notorious criminal group, Operation Rescue
=================
That’s funny !!!! – I’m sure that durring the time of slavery – the ‘under-ground-railroad’ would have been concidered a notorious criminal group
Sounds like Jedyboy is off his meds again – tisk tisk — he he
You mean, like that?
Sigh. . . obviously, no.
Churches are free to let any candidate speak at their churches. I wouldn’t particularly mind closing that loophole, but there’s a problem: since we’re not talking about the church themselves, you run into issues of free association. Excluding political activity for such organizations should be uncontroversial. But telling them who they are allowed to invite as guest speakers?
While it may favor, in very general terms, the separation of church of state, we’re talking about a tax exemption, which requires a rational basis. Could the federal government deny the Red Cross a tax exemption if they invited Barack Obama to give a speech?
Are you prepared to go there, littlejohn? I sure as hell ain’t!
Maybe some type of “equal time” rules could be worked out, but that, ironically, would have the effect of encouraging rather than removing politics, so I’d be inclined to oppose it.
What really matters is what happens after the candidate and the cameras leave.
.
Clinton’s appearance helped promote Mobilization 2004, an interfaith coalition created to help promote liberal causes during the election. It is sponsored by Riverside Church and its pastor, James A. Forbes Jr., who spoke at this year’s Democratic National Convention”
you mean, like that?
Obviously, the answer, again, is no, you pathetic moron.
If Mobilization 2004 was receiving a religious organization, or receiving a a tax exemption, than I’m the friggin’ Pope.
“separation of church of state” – as far as I’m concerned – the state needs to stay out of the churches business
Rage-
I understand the point you are making. However, by “inviting” certain speakers, they are in fact, involving themselves in the campaign. Now, I guess a case could be made that they invited everyone to speak, if they did, and kept it therefore within the rules. I just don;t think so. I am sure that many of the congregation would see an invited appearance as an endoresement. Therein lies the involvement.
ANyway, I belief the church’s mission, and the pulpit, can only be compromised by getting involved in the politics of the day, especially when it it comes to candidate involvement.
Sorry if I got a little aggravated. I’m trying to discuss what the law is under the U.S. Constitution.
I think that “dadman” thing was distracting me.
Wow. Name calling now. As I recall from statments from previous liberal posters, a sure sign of losing an argument. Any way, to the point’
“It is sponsored by Riverside Church and its pastor, James A. Forbes Jr., who spoke at this year’s Democratic National Convention”
you mean, like that?
‘
Yeah, like that. Sponsored by Riverside Church and it’s pastor. A good guess the church is a nonprofit, you think?
We the people (ie: the church) have every right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government for a redress of grievances — thank you very much from our founding fathers
dadman-
Yes you do. And if you want to be tax exempt, you have every right to follow the law governing that tax exempt status.
What argument am I losing, exactly?
If Clinton’s initiative was in fact funded or endorsed by those churches in my view they should in fact lose their tax exemption.
You got a link for that story?
SOrry, I was using someone elses (most liberal posters on this blog) argument about name calling.
Yea, let me look up the link.
“http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ClintonSpeaksAtRiversideChurch.html”
It’s not an easy law to violate.
Actually, Rage, it’s a much fuzzier line than you like to admit. Moreover, it is inevitably conservative churches who are criticized and targeted for these so-called violations.
There is no distinction of any substantive difference between what the MaggotPunks (how appropriately named, BTW) complain of and the examples cited by LJ – except, of course, the ideology of the complainer.
That is the only difference. Liberal churches, black churches’ political activities are politically correct, conservative churches aren’t. Show me any other distinction worth a tinker’s damn.
It’s kind of like the corporations, wanting all the right and priveleges of an indefinite entity, except for the privelege of paying taxes!
entity, with indefinite life, and protections/rights afforded individuals,…
littlejohn, not to belabor the point, but being nonprofit does not equal being tax exempt.
dadman, you and the other members of the church individually have those rights as citizens. The church itself as an entity, especially if incorporated, has those rights. No question about that. That said, the manner in which those rights may be exercised might violate the arcane rules governing income tax exemption under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The whole area of exemption from income taxation, deductibility of contributions, etc. is quite involved and hard to understand.
avtolle-
I think I have a basic understand of the difference. I have had to go thru that when establishing a 501c(3) that I am involved with.
(non political in nature). Have I gone astray some where?
lj, taking the time to think about it, I’m not sure either the general issues advocacy you showed nor this kind of thing strictly constitutes
politicking.
The Yuri Report looks for religious dominionism (a good thing), but here’s a more neutral source.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002074957_religleft28m.html
Nationally, groups such as the year-old Clergy Network for National Leadership Change, Mobilization 2004 and Call to Renewal have been drumming the message that poverty, war and health care are moral and religious issues that the faithful have a responsibility to act — and vote — on.
Not exactly endorsing anyone.
I do, however, philosophically agree that churches should generally avoid politics, as religion and politics is a nasty, dangerous brew.
Rage-
Then we agree, at least philosphically. A good day’s work.
littlejohn, no, you haven’t gone astray. You mentioned your belief that the church was likely nonprofit, and I was just clearing up a point. :-)
I think that the church should speak out on issues, at least in a way that highlights whatever faith they belong to says about that issues. I think politicians speaking should not be part of that. Perhaps I used a poor example.
avtolle-
gotcha! I used the general term and should not have. Thanks for keeping it clear. I always appreciate those who actualy know things posting stuff, as well as those of US who “just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night”
I wonder why it is SOME christians feel the need to SO exercise themselves in this life.
Aren’t they supposed to be focused on the next?
As I see it, all I have is my run at it here. I’ll thank the faithful to keep their faith off of me, out of our laws and off of politics.
And if they won’t? Well I can push back just as hard.
And will.
There is no distinction of any substantive difference between what the MaggotPunks (how appropriately named, BTW) complain of and the examples cited by LJ – except, of course, the ideology of the complainer.
Once again, GMC, if you know of liberal churches crossing the line, produce the evidence, or Start Training Frothing Understudies. The allegations produced by the Maggotpunks involved activities in support of specific candidates. If you found evidence of churches in support of a specific party, that would be acceptable too.
It’s in the interests of everyone to stop that kind of crap.
Your lame “tu quo” attempt to change the subject is tiresome.
“Start Training Frothing Understudies”
hehe. Funny, I don;t care who you are.
GMC, there is a “distinction of substantive difference” between the examples littlejohn posted and that of which you complain with reference to the arcane provisions of Section 501(c)(3), IRC; perhaps only there, to be fair; but the same does exist.
My personal perspective is that churches should not invite politicians to speak to the congregation (whether or not said invitee is also a minister), nor should any church be involved in the endorsement of any party. Please note: when I refer to a “church”, I’m referring to the entity itself, not the individual members, who, outside the entity, have every right to attend speeches of candidates in a “secular” location and to support or not support any political party. Similarly, the pastor should not, in his/her official capacity, which may be deemed to be representative of the church endorse a candidate or political party, but is within his/her rights to do so in the individual capacity of the pastor.
avtolle-
I whole heartedly agree. And with that, good night to all. Doubt I make it back, full evening planned. Not that anybody cares, just saying.
See YA!
avtolle-
I whole heartedly agree. And with that, good night to all. Doubt I make it back, full evening planned. Not that anybody cares, just saying.
See YA!
“And liberal churches routinely ignore that distinction without criticism or ominous visits from the IRS.
“But IOKIYAD. Riiight.”
Bullsh*t counselor. Christian Right politicians speak at churches all the time without a peep (I know, I suffered through a couple of them). Politicians speak at churches, and will tend to speak at churches where they think they will have a sympathetic audience. This is true along the entire political spectrum.
Besides which, it hasn’t all been “one way”:
http://www.ucc.org/news/lieberman-questions-why-irs-is.html
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/02/irs_investigates_church_for_le.html
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3165&Itemid=121
Seriously, counselor, I expect this sort of nonsense from some of the more shallow and reflexive self identified conservatives here, not from someone like you.
“Churches are free to let any candidate speak at their churches. I wouldn’t particularly mind closing that loophole, but there’s a problem: since we’re not talking about the church themselves, you run into issues of free association. Excluding political activity for such organizations should be uncontroversial. But telling them who they are allowed to invite as guest speakers?
“While it may favor, in very general terms, the separation of church of state, we’re talking about a tax exemption, which requires a rational basis. Could the federal government deny the Red Cross a tax exemption if they invited Barack Obama to give a speech?”
Precisely Rage. I don’t pretend to have anything close to the knowledge of a Vaughn Tolle (sp?), but the rules should be consistent between churches and other organizations that qualify for 501 (3) status. Politicans do speak in front of advocacy and service agencies all the time without receiving their official endorsement, therefore politicians should be able to do so with churches as well. Yes, I suspect there is quite a lot of circumventing of the law (and yes, I suspect right leaning churches, greatly outnumbering truly left leaning churches, amount to more violations), but from what I can tell from my layman perspective the standard of evidence is pretty high.
avtolle
Posted October 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
Similarly, the pastor should not, in his/her official capacity, which may be deemed to be representative of the church endorse a candidate or political party, but is within his/her rights to do so in the individual capacity of the pastor.
====================================================
Don’t mean to cherry pick, but your last sentence, in my opinion, states it incorrectly: I would substitute “his/her rights to do so in the individual capacity of the pastor,” with, “his/her rights to do so in the individual capacity of citizen of the United States.”
Why shouldn’t Fred Phelps have to pay taxes? And in his case he has to use taxpayer funded police forces as his personal bodyguard where ever he goes
Maybe its time to ask the question. Why are Churches tax exempt? Its simple. From the time of Christ, the belief of the Church has been that all things come from God the Creator. Any wealth or prosperity that a person (or nation) has is the result of Gods blessing. Tithing is not only a Biblical command, it is an act of worship. Christ himself said to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (taxes) and render unto God what is God’s (tithing). I know it may be hard for the secular humanists to understand, but when we Christians give, we are giving back to God a portion of what He has gave us. Yes, the Church does end up with the money, but is under a strict Biblical mandate to use the money wisely and properly to benefit mankind and bring glory to God. To tax what is Gods was until very recently something that almost no government would ever consider. In addition, until recently, the Church was looked upon as beneficial and necessary for the prospering of mankind. Until the fairly recent rise of the welfare government “nanny” state, caring for the sick, schools and caring for the poor was long the job of the Church. The rise of the secular humanist and atheist ideology and the resulting culture wars as well as the well documented failures of the Church has resulted in the church no longer being held in high esteem. Those who believe that big government is the answer to all things have long cast an envious eye at what they consider a large pot of untaxed money and would revoke the Churches tax exempt status in a heartbeat if they could. As we continue on in this post modern era, I have no doubt that someday soon, the Churches will be taxed as well as their parishioners persecuted. Fortunately, I know how this all ends and Gods glory shall shine forever.
What BS.
Daddyboy,
“Sounds like Jedyboy is off his meds again – tisk tisk — he he”
I take it that means that you have no rational argument to present?
“Yes, the Church does end up with the money, but is under a strict Biblical mandate to use the money wisely and properly to benefit mankind and bring glory to God.”
uh huh.
That monument of glass and steel on that VERY high dollar bit of real estate at 21st and Rock Road is SUCH a boon to mankind.
It really is very simple.
Churches should get a three strike rule.
On the third strike of crossing the line into politics, they should lose their tax exempt status.
Cris,
Wouldn’t it then follow that if god wants to tell a secular government what to do and to whom, he ought to at least pay his taxes on all that mammon he rakes in from suckers like you? And if we give McCain trouble over how many houses he owns, how many tax-free houses does god own?
it also makes a difference if the political speech being made — using a church facility — is a WORSHIP event — or if it is an open community gathering…
in none of the denominations i serve, are the clergy allowed to make a “pulpit endorsement” of ANY candidate — what clergy might say at the local coffee spot, is not covered… obviously…
It also makes a difference as to whether your “Pastor” knows his ass from a hole in the ground.
If a Dumbsiht Pastor makes some kind of Political Recommendation, while he preaches FOR ABORTION, then I’m a little less likely to listen to anything such a “Pastor” has to say.
And I’m also very likely never to go back to a phony “church” like that again.
When Obama spoke at Ebenezer Church, he was not speaking there as a candidate… the church was observing some sort of anniversary.. neither obama, nor any clergy or member of that church stood up and said, ‘Vote for Obama’
When Dr. Forbes addressed the Demo. Convention, he was not speaking at a CHURCH meeting… nor was he speaking as an advocate of any CHURCH… he was invited to speak as an INDIVIDUAL… This he or any other religious leader, is allowed to do!!
Jerry Fallwell addressed political conventions, as has Pat Robertson…. I dont recall ANYbody challenging those speeches…
Yet, now, since we have a black candidate running for POTUS… the complaints are running rampant!!
I call Racist BS!!
I wish people would do some checking, before starting in with the covert racial slurs!! Especially coming from elected officials… makes Kansas look BAD….
Did Rev Wright make a political recommendation for Obama?
God Da*n America!
I bet he sure as hell did say go vote for Obamination!
that being said,
good night; good luck; god bless —-
whatever you conceive god to be!!
blessings ALL!!
so mote it be!!
if max pulled his head out of his a$$, he might smell something besides Sh*t!! LOL
yuk yuk yuk
Chas you b real funny!
Chas vomits:
“Yet, now, since we have a black candidate running for POTUS… the complaints are running rampant!!
I call Racist BS!!”
You know, if one more Lib brings up the fact that Obama is Black and it’s racist to be against him, I just might start believing it.
or not…
People are against Obama because he has zero experience at any executive position and is a far left ideologist with ideas, but no action.
Passage Matthew 7:3-5:
3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
tsk… tsk… even the Devil can quote scripture, Max…. hmmmm….
Churches should not remain silent when evil is on the ballot as in this election.
Obama is clearly evil as are most of those who support him.
Why should evil make sure that good stays quiet when evil is a selection?
Cheers
dadman
Posted October 1, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Christians are not taking money from you (the taxpayer) to build and run their churches – they are built and run by donations from their own members
They certainly are taking money from taxpayers to build and run their churches. These mega churches are gobbling up the prime real estate at no tax-exempt status. Those are real estate taxes that the taxpayers would be generating IF churches were taxed.
I heard a news report of some small town that was being crippled by all the churches in town building their huge church campuses and the town was strangling to death without the tax base that would otherwise have been generated by businesses. And these churches all require police, fire, roads, sewer and the other government services they expect but they are not paying for!
Kandisue – I am still praying for you. Have you ever considered that you might just be so full of hatred that you fail to see anything but hate?
mom
Kandisue – I am still praying for you. Have you ever considered that you might just be so full of hatred that you fail to see anything but hate?
_________________________________________________
I’m full of love why would you think otherwise?
Exactly whom would you pray to?
” heard a news report of some small town that was being crippled by all the churches in town building their huge church campuses and the town was strangling to death without the tax base that would otherwise have been generated by businesses. And these churches all require police, fire, roads, sewer and the other government services they expect but they are not paying for!”
Please provide a link.
Kandisue
Posted October 2, 2008 at 8:57 am | Permalink
Churches should not remain silent when evil is on the ballot as in this election.
************************************
Gimme a break.
mom
I heard a news report of some small town that was being crippled by all the churches in town building their huge church campuses and the town was strangling to death without the tax base that would otherwise have been generated by businesses. And these churches all require police, fire, roads, sewer and the other government services they expect but they are not paying for!
_______________________________
Shall we think that the source of your article was an obama of the muslim faith liberal source?
Who do you pray to mom?
Do you believe that abortion is evil mom?
What does your God think about those who vote for people who think it is ok to stab a baby in head with pliers?
#
mom
Posted October 2, 2008 at 9:28 am | Permalink
dadman
Posted October 1, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Christians are not taking money from you (the taxpayer) to build and run their churches – they are built and run by donations from their own members
They certainly are taking money from taxpayers to build and run their churches. These mega churches are gobbling up the prime real estate at no tax-exempt status. Those are real estate taxes that the taxpayers would be generating IF churches were taxed.
I heard a news report of some small town that was being crippled by all the churches in town building their huge church campuses and the town was strangling to death without the tax base that would otherwise have been generated by businesses. And these churches all require police, fire, roads, sewer and the other government services they expect but they are not paying for!
=====================
This applies to any 501(c)(3) organization to be exempt from property taxes.
One of the most political 501(c)(3) organization out there is the Sierra Club.
This far left, liberal organization gets away from paying taxes and then turns around to sue companies and the federal government on environmental issues in the tune of billions of dollars to fatten its coffers.
So before you go squawking about churches, clean up your own leftist organizations and have them pay local property taxes instead of sponging off the government.
“Regular” declares –
“…have them pay local property taxes instead of sponging off the government.”
And income taxes, too?
Remember this, “Regular,” next time one of you CONs pull out the old Flat Tax memes.
No mortgage deductions. No business expense deductions. No deductions for children or depreciation of equipment.
Remember that, next time you CONs trot out simplistic bumper-sticker policy proposals as a distraction from issues that matter.
Sigh.
MonkeyHawk, I dont know why they are complaining.
They are STILL safe from gay marriage…
Thomas Frank was right, and is being proven so everyday. Cons will vote against their own financial interests every time just to pander to wingnut ideology on “social” issues.
So.. you cons are surprised that after all these years of voting against your own financial interests, your finanical interests are hurting?
Duh.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 9:54 am | Permalink
“Regular” declares –
“…have them pay local property taxes instead of sponging off the government.”
And income taxes, too?
Remember this, “Regular,” next time one of you CONs pull out the old Flat Tax memes.
No mortgage deductions. No business expense deductions. No deductions for children or depreciation of equipment.
Remember that, next time you CONs trot out simplistic bumper-sticker policy proposals as a distraction from issues that matter.
—————————
Who would need deductions if taxes are paid on a flat fee basis?
Churches already pay sales taxes when they purchase perishable, non-perishable goods and services.
Your argument is weak, misinformed and irrelevant.
While a 501(c)(3) organization is exempt from income taxes at the federal level, it is not exempt from local property taxes automatically as a result thereof. That is a matter for the state and local governments to determine. Kansas, as a matter of state law, has made the determination that such exempt organizations shall be exempt from property taxes so long as the organizations meet the other requirements set forth therein. BTW, this could also be the case with state income taxes as well; most if not all states follow the federal lead in these matters, but are not required to do so.
Regular, donations to the Sierra Club are not tax deductible, primarily because they are not a non-profit.
From their donations page:
“Note: Contributions, gifts, and dues to the Sierra Club are not tax deductible. They support our effective, citizen-based advocacy and lobbying efforts.”
BTW, now that the Sierra Club has been cleaned up (albeit decades ago), Regular, are you going to start cleaning up the churches?
Regular, you might want to research the Kansas Retail Sales Tax exemption statutes on the issue of churches (as well as other 501(c)(3) organizations) paying retail sales taxes.
MaggotPunk, the Sierra Club may well still be a nonprofit and a tax exempt organization, just not under 501(c)(3).
Maggotpunk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 10:02 am | Permalink
Regular, donations to the Sierra Club are not tax deductible, primarily because they are not a non-profit.
—————————
That would be wrong. Here is a list of deductible and non-deductible contributions that the Sierra Club has. (from their Web page)
Donations and Contributions
Thank you for considering a donation to the Sierra Club. Below are several programs we hope you’ll consider for your charitable contribution.
Tax Deductible:
Clair Tappaan Lodge
Inner City Outings
Sharon Churchwell Fund
Outings Leader Education program
Service trips
The Sierra Club Foundation
Non-Tax Deductible:
Clair Tappaan Lodge
Morley Fund
You are talking about the 501(c)(4) part of the Sierra Club which is a group of Lobbyists and cannot get tax deductions.
The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) and is described above in the list of its deductible and non-deductible functions.
The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4).
Regular, the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation are two separate groups. When you clearly stated that the Sierra Club is a 501c3 and it isn’t then I’m not the one who is wrong.
#
avtolle
Posted October 2, 2008 at 10:04 am | Permalink
Regular, you might want to research the Kansas Retail Sales Tax exemption statutes on the issue of churches (as well as other 501(c)(3) organizations) paying retail sales taxes.
————————–
This only applies to the Churches if they buy the goods and services directly. However, if a member or group of members buys the good and services, then the tax is payed the individuals and can be used as a deduction, but still taxes are paid. The church cannot claim the retail tax exemption.
The purchase by members of goods and service far exceeds the individual church payments for said expense.
i.e., members purchasing food for a Wednesday night potluck or food for a church sponsored trip.
or transportation costs associated with such trips and lodging, especially in another state.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 10:19 am | Permalink
Regular, the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation are two separate groups. When you clearly stated that the Sierra Club is a 501c3 and it isn’t then I’m not the one who is wrong.
————————–
You made a statement about deductions and I proved you wrong.
Go hang your hat on that coat tree and see if it grows into a pair of boots.
Regular, “Churches already pay sales taxes when they purchase perishable, non-perishable goods and services.” That is what I was responding to, not the situation where members were doing the buying. And, members acting on their own behalf shouldn’t get the exemption.
Regular you are such a liar and it’s so easy to prove you wrong. Here’s what you said,
“One of the most political 501(c)(3) organization out there is the Sierra Club.”
Yet the Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) organization. So you are wrong? You just don’t know what you are talking about, as usual.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 10:31 am | Permalink
Regular you are such a liar and it’s so easy to prove you wrong. Here’s what you said,
“One of the most political 501(c)(3) organization out there is the Sierra Club.”
Yet the Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) organization. So you are wrong? You just don’t know what you are talking about, as usual.
————————-
Try and pay attention, the Sierra Club is split into two organizations, the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4).
Both are part of Sierra Club and Sierra Club International, or for you simpletons – the Sierra Club.
Stop inhaling cheap weed cuz.
Yes, the Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) organization, you said it was a c3 organization. So again, how am I wrong? If you wanted to say the Sierra Club Foundation, a separate group, is a political c3 organization then you could have said that but you didn’t. Yes, you were wrong and lying yourself out of the situation isn’t going to help you at all.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 10:36 am | Permalink
Yes, the Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) organization, you said it was a c3 organization. So again, how am I wrong? If you wanted to say the Sierra Club Foundation, a separate group, is a political c3 organization then you could have said that but you didn’t. Yes, you were wrong and lying yourself out of the situation isn’t going to help you at all.
—————-
Grow a brain cuz, Sierra Club is both a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) under two different functions.
No, the Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)3. Why do I have to keep on repeating the obvious to you? Try to be honest for a change.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 10:44 am | Permalink
No, the Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)3. Why do I have to keep on repeating the obvious to you? Try to be honest for a change.
—————
Cuz,
Being honest would be a first for you, not for me.
Calling the Sierra Club Foundation the Sierra Club is like calling Scholfield Honda the Honda dealer.
You are mincing words and making a fool of yourself.
Or maybe you are just stupid, which wouldn’t be a surprise.
Sierra Club 501c4
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=guidestar&npoId=100315323
Sierra Club Foundation 501c3
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=guidestar&npoId=565548
As usual I’m pointing out the facts that you are wrong when you stated the Sierra Club is a 501c3. The IRS doesn’t appear to agree with you.
By any other name, a wolf is still a wolf; The Sierra club is still Sierra Club by any other name
Status: 501(c)(4) Not eligible for charitable donations; Contributions are NOT deductible; foundation grants come through Sierra Club Foundation, a 501(c)(3) companion organization. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund was renamed Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund in 1998.
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
The financial background to manage a 1.5 million dollar budget that includes 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) and PAC accounts.
The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)3 charitable foundation that provides support for tax- deductible environmental action:
Clean Water 501(c)(3) and the Sierra Club 501(c)(3) act largely as conduits for their respective 501(c)(4)s and appear to rely on their partner 501(c)(4)s as the “central command” for implementation of charitable-purpose program activities. Nature Conservancy and Friends of the Earth have relatively autonomous program relationships with their 501(c)(4)s, while League of Conservation Voters is moving from a somewhat reliant to more autonomous relationship with their 501(c)(4). As the chart shows, all the organizations experienced some change across time in amounts transferred. To determine whether the fiscal relationship between components of the complex organization has implications for advocacy programming, we specifically examined lobbying activities conducted by 501(c)(3) charitable organizations and compared them with 501(c)(3) transfers to 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations (as determined above). Table 2 provides a picture of lobbying expenditures from FY 1998 to 2000 in the 501(c)(3) component. For these years the data suggest that the existence of and changes in lobbying expenditures of the 501(c)(3) are related to 510(c)(3) transfers to the 501(c)(4) when compared to Table 1. Most significantly, where a large percentage of 501(c)(3) expenditures are transferred to the 501(c)(4), the 501(c)(3) shows no funded lobbying program activity (Clean Water, Sierra Club). Table 2: Lobbying Expenditures in Five Environmental 501(c)(3) Organizations Total Lobbying Expenditures Friends of the Earth Clean Water League of Conservation Voters Sierra Club Nature Conservancy FY 1998 $76,468 0 $14,210 0 $993,396 FY 1999 $102,896 0 $23,307 0 $863,667 FY 2000 $111,849 0 $656,071 0 $3,191,930 Source: NCCS Core Files
Sierra Club Foundation, 501(c)(3) and its non-profit groups are tightly affiliated with and fund 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations and 527 political organizations.
The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization with an affiliated 501(c)(4) group, Sierra Club. There is also a 527 organization called the Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, which claims to be a “separate segregated fund of the Sierra Club.” The Sierra Club Foundation does not claim affiliation with this 527 organization, however the Sierra Club Voters Education Fund “does not have its own board of directors, officers or trustees.”
The Sierra Club has a history of endorsing candidates for political office. Most recently, the Sierra Club announced its support of Senator Obama’s (D-IL) presidential bid. While there is no reported activity yet from the organization, the Sierra Club has been known to run television and radio advertisements both supporting their candidate and criticizing the opposition. At the time of this report, Sierra Club had announced its support of thirteen candidates for seats in the United States Senate. Of those thirteen candidates, none are Republicans. The organization has also announced its endorsement of one hundred and fifty-six candidates for the United State House of Representatives. Of the candidates, four are Republicans. Essentially, ninety-eight percent of Sierra Club’s endorsements favor Democrat candidates. – Senator Imhoffe
Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
http://www.earthjustice.org/
As I said, the Sierra Club under any disguised name is still the Sierra Club. They are a far left radical organization that is litigious and 100 percent liberal based with a known history of supporting Democratic Candidates in political elections and in socialistic policies.
Regular, point me to some IRS documentation that shows the Sierra Club to be a 501c3. Until then your rants just make you look like my bitch (and you are number 4 today).
http://www.sierraclub.org/foundation/
Here you go cuz,
By their own admission, The Sierra Club Foundation works in tangent with The Sierra Club.
Statement from the The Sierra Club Foundation website.
The Sierra Club Foundation is a public charity whose mission is to provide financial support to the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations for tax deductible work. We fund a range of environmental projects which fall into the three general categories of public education, litigation, and training. The Sierra Club Foundation does not accept unsolicited proposals.
So cuz,
Are you calling The Sierra club Foundation liars too?
What part of ‘public charity’ do you not understand Cuz?
Are you just too naive to believe that The Sierra Club Foundation, a 501(c)(3) doesn’t exist and has nothing to do with The Sierra Club, even though they admit to providing financial support.
You are just about out of gas cuz, you lose. You better quit while you’re ahead.
No sense in repeating myself because you have constantly failed in proving your claim that the Sierra Club is a 501c3, otherwise you would have. Just keep on telling your lies as it’s apparently I’ve made you bitch number 4 today.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted October 2, 2008 at 11:30 am | Permalink
No sense in repeating myself because you have constantly failed in proving your claim that the Sierra Club is a 501c3, otherwise you would have. Just keep on telling your lies as it’s apparently I’ve made you bitch number 4 today.
======================
As I said, calling The Sierra Club Foundation – The Sierra Club, makes no difference. They are joined at the hip philosophically, ideologically and financially.
You can’t call me a ‘b@tch’ because I own you in every discussion we have and will always as you belong to the intellectually confused part of the family. :D
>That monument of glass and steel on that VERY high dollar bit of real estate at 21st and Rock Road is SUCH a boon to mankind.<
Yes it is! I have been extremely impressed with how much they give to the community!
By the way.. did you know that when CCC was built on that location, there was little but pasture land in every direction. Maybe people should be thankful that someone chose to develop that area.
Kandipoo,
“mom
Kandisue – I am still praying for you. Have you ever considered that you might just be so full of hatred that you fail to see anything but hate?
_________________________________________________
I’m full of love why would you think otherwise?
Exactly whom would you pray to?”
You don’t even begin to see the irony in those two statements you just made to mom, do you? I never cease to be horrified by some of the awful things christans do and say to each other and anybody else they get their hands on, and then claim it’s all out of “christian love.” All I can say is that christian “love” seems a whole lot closer to cruelty than any other kind of love I’ve run across! Do me a favor and don’t offer me any of your christian “love.”
Sam,
When I was a kid I used to have a lot of great times playing in that pasture land at 29th and Rock. I don’t really consider it improved by a monument to cash and vanity.
Consider that Jesus, who never had more than maybe two sheckels to rub together and only occasionally rode a donkey, gave his cloak to a guy who was worse off than he was, and the multimillion dollar budgets required to build and maintain a megachurch seems wasteful in comparison to the good that money would have done elsewhere. It’s an old story- if you can’t impress them with substance, impress them with opulence!
I rather miss that pasture!
Jed,
>I don’t really consider it improved by a monument to cash and vanity.<
You may be right… or Wright in this case.. the building appears to be a legacy of the former pastor Joe Wright. So, not being a member of any church and this one being close by, we decided to check it out. What I am seeing is a new pastor that is interested in giving to the community and helping those in need. Yes… the building is a bit much, but it is already there, so I can only say that it appears to me it is being used more and more for things that I would support. And.. I hope one day, if I stick around long enough, that they may even support some of the programs that we have established. Remains to be seen.
For sure though… we DO have to drive a long ways from that spot now to see any decent pasture!! I get my fix going to my wife’s farm way out SW of Hutchinson…………
Sam,
I would hope that they’d support your programs. If they want to really be Christ-like, those downtown alleys and the park are a good place to start!
I get my fix driving with a friend to a lake south of KC, going through the Flint Hills. There’s real beauty there for those with eyes to see, especially early in the morning just as the fog lifts, or during one of those spectacular sunsets! Can really take your breath away.
Translation of the regular vs maggotpunk fight about the sierra club and its tax status.
regular (bugs)- its duck season
maggot (daffy)- its rabbit season
bugs-duck season
daffy-rabbit season
bugs- duck season
daffy- rabbit season
bugs- duck season
daffy- rabbit season
bugs- rabbit season
daffy- its duck season, fire!