Obama Adm. Trashes 1st Amendment, Forces Govt. Into Religion

Once again, "these organizations" are not required to sacrifice their FREE PRACTICE OF RELIGION to satisfy their tax exempt status, and none of your made up bullcrap changes that fact.

 

Its not "free practice" when my tax payer dollars support them. Face it, you aren't coming at this from a logical point of view, but a Christian reactionary one. I've said all I need to say, its like talking to a barking dog.

 

Wrong. The government can no more force religious groups to distribute birth control than it can force them to provide abortions.

Their tax status is based on their being a non-profit, benevolent organization , not on the current Administration's Un-Constitutional attempt to subordinate them to its preferred social agenda, which it KNOWS violates the groups' Free practice of religion.

If the Obama Adm. wants to revoke their tax status, then they are free to attempt to do so, and will lose.

They can only prevent them from providing ANY governemnt services,which would SAVE THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS EVEN MORE MONEY...

 

It IS Free Practice of Religion,and their tax status is as a NON-PROFIT. What you are trying to pretend is "logic" is nothing more than fascism.

Tax exempt status for charitable groups is NOT dependent on forwarding goverment social policy; sorry, once again to pop your nonsense with the facts.



Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.




http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html


Hey look!! Not ONE WORD ABOUT being any particular administrations FORCED COMPLIANCE SUBORDINATE in violating Freedom of Religion, or ANY OTHER Leftninny Fascist policy ideas the Adm. may have.

The religious groups ARE NOT REQUIRED to do ANYTHING besides what is stated above for tax exempt status.

Sorry to invalidate all your make-believe, desperately wished for fascist control of charitable groups....Catholic hospitals willl CEASE offering government services and will NOT violate their tax -exempt status in doing so.

Is that what you want? They serve the POOREST AREAS with the BEST CARE...

Hey..here's a newsflash: CATHOLICS are TAXPAYERS, TOO!! And they outnumber you...by far,and they get to disagree with you...sorry.

I got your "barking dog" hangin' right here....

 

So its OK to disregard Constitution when it fits your agenda and you have a majority in a population.... Check, mate. Don't bring up Constitution in your future postings, you are obviously using it selectively.

 

Now we hold our collective breath until the EPA investigates the manufacture of latex.

 

More debating what hasn't been stated.

Please provide an example of my "selective use" of the Constitution.

Feel free to continue making up whatever nonsense you need to be true; we enjoy the humor...

 

Yep and the new rules do nothing to force contraception on people. Perhaps the problem here is that you're reading comprehension is very low

Its amazing how illogical and dumb the extreme right-wing is. They consider other people being allowed to have birth control as a violation of their rights. its as if they think other people not being forced to follower their 18th century beliefs is a violation of their rights

 

Yeah.. I have the reading comprehension trouble.

PLease edify us all as to what you delude this means, other than FORCING religious-based, charitable medical providers to distribute birth control: (from the OP link)


The Obama administration on Friday ruled that religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and universities, will have to offer birth-control coverage to women employees but gave the organizations an extra year to comply.


Can't wait for the Master of Reading Comprehension's explanation...

 

Selective because when it fits your agenda you start screaming about Constitution and big government and so on, but when it doesn't, you start giving arguments like this:

as a perfectly legit reason for church to influence politics.

 

PLease give an example of what you keep claiming I have done, or stop making up bullcrap. I NEVER oppose what the Constitution says.

People get to have religion...AND be involved in politics , too!!! And, they can even use their religious principles to guide their politcal decisions.

It's called "Freedom".

Gasp!! People also actually get to completley disregard your entire worldview, and most do exactly that.

 

I think the government should force health care providers to give all politicians and bureaucrats a kick in the @ss whenever they walk through the hospital doors. My expert research shows that they really, really need it.

 

They have to do with forcing people to pay for other peoples' contraception. Don't be surprised is churches shutter their schools and hospitals because of this, rather than violate their consciences. Then how much health coverage will their out-of-work employees have?

 

This will be challenged in court; the glaring 1st Amendment violation will be deftly outlined by the Robert's Court..

 

Now , there's a "prescription" I like!

 

The above is not the case at all. You obviously didn't read about this. What is happening is the administrative fiat is forcing the Catholic church to pay for contraceptive health care coverage for their employees. Nothing to do with medicaid or refusing service to anybody. They are being forced to pay for something that is against their basic tenets.

 

This is part of why healthcare is so messed up here.

We've got First World technology with Third World mindsets.

 

But they will be forced to pay for it's use by others.

 

I had no idea that the SIMPLE WORDING in the OP link was so difficult for Leftninnies to comprehend...the government is CLEARLY FORCING a religious group to take part in activites against the religion's tenets...astoundingly arrogant 1st Amendment violation by the Obama Adm.

How the Left here keep missing it is a testamonial to the knee-jerk hate Christianity training that they have been spoonfed for years...

 

This came up in Mass this weekend and The Church is beyond aggravated at his decision to force his will on the catholic community. In one way it's a good thing because he just lost the catholic vote. He is rather brazen isn't he!

 

That seems to be the MO of this administration. They appear to be banking on the fact that Supreme Court challenges will be just too expensive for the organizations affected.

 

It's a pretty sure bet that Catholic hospitals, clinics, etc., will close their doors to the public, of forced to comply with this blatant govermment incursion into obvious 1st Amendment rights to freely practice their religion.

 

I fail to see how providing birth control coverage for workers causes a problem with them treating their patients in their hospitals.

 

Forcing people religiously oppsosed to artificial contraception to directly pay for and assisst in its distribution doesn't "cause a problem with them treating their patients in their hospitals"; it violates their 1st Amendment rights to Freedom of Religion.


Rather than submit to this outrageously un-Consitutional usurpation of their Rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they will likely seek relief in the Courts, or close their doors,as is ALSO their Right.

This will deprive many of the poorest areas in America of the medical care Christian , (especially Catholic) hospitals have been providing for over three centuries in North America.

All because the asinine Keystone Cops Obama Adm. thinks that it can ride roughshod over the Constitution to force the Leftagenda down Americans throats.

Nice move, Obamites...
Der....

 

If these are the "faith-based" organizations that accept taxpayer money, they cannot discriminate. IIRC, when Bush first started giving them the money, they demanded the right to be discriminatory in hiring practices and I don't think they were allowed to do that, either.

If all insurance companies are to be required to furnish contraception, then their insurance companies must do so, too, just as they furnish Viagra - and I take it they aren't complaining about their male employees getting Viagra? The women don't have to take advantage of it unless they want to but it should be available if they do - for health reasons if nothing else.