ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH should lose tax exempt status for PRO-ILLEGAL lobbying efforts?

Yeah.

10char

 

I agree Blackrook and we're stuck between 2 intransigent sides, those who want to round 'em all up and ship 'em out and those who want complete amnesty. No solution is forthcoming because no solution satisfies both sides. When the right solution comes, one that provides a pathway to citizenship while at the same time applying consequences for the crime of illegal entry, I'm going to be the most outspoken advocate of that solution.

I want this to end too.

 

The Catholic Church will not lose its tax exempt status over this, or any other issue.

The threat of pulling tax exempt status is a paper tiger because there's no politician who will have the nerve to try it.

Also, it is blatantly unconstitutional to hold such a threat over a church for exercising its First Amendment rights.

 

Apparently you don't know what the 501c tax exemption status is and how easily it can be pulled. Churches cannot be PAC's. They cannot endorse specific candidates for office. They cannot raise funds for political purposes. There's a whole list of thou-shall-nots. No, the "Catholic Church" cannot lose its tax exempt status wholesale, but those dioces that break the law can and will.

And on that day I'll have no pity for them. My dioces obeys the law.

 

Please name them.

They should be taxed -- for the same reason as churches.

 

I think there's something in the law about not breaking it. Maybe that's what the Catholic Church should be trying to do. Of course, they don't exactly have a stellar track record now, do they?

 

The all inclusive list would be those entities bearing the identification label "Inc." at the end of their label descriptor on any of their legal documents.

Agreed. And that reason is because they have joined that club called 'corporatism'.

 

The First Amendment says the following:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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.


IMHO, restricting Church's from speaking on politics violates the bold-faced above. Nothing in the First Amendment says that Churches cannot speak on political issues. The First Amendment only restricts the government. It doesn't restrict anyone else.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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.

Taxing them would be violating the first clause. It would be prohibiting free exercise of religion.

 

Exactly.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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.

 

You are trying to claim that all U.S. corporations are tax-exempt? This ought to be interesting.

Well, it looks like we finally agree on something.

 

I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment. You do understand that "free exercise" does not refer to money, right? There is nothing in the Constitution that exempts voluntary associations from paying their fair share in taxes.

 

You do understand that the church is not the only organization out there that gets tax free status?

This includes anything that is defined as charitable in nature or a non-profit organization.

And the reason the government does this, is because these organziations are usually quite adept at providing required services that, in their abscence, would cost a LOT more if the government had to do it.

I see no atheists railing against non-profit hospitals for instance (at least not until they are called on it, in which case they simply adopt the position of eliminating this in what is the total abandonment of practiciality in favor of ideological zealotry), but churches must be stripped.

In other words, tax status, according to atheists, should be first an foremost defined not by what the organization does, but by its beliefs?

Anything to beat up Christians ...

 

You can whine about it all you want, but Congress in their wisdom didn't want PAC's to be able to hide behind tax exempt religious groups. Churches can speak on political issues, but they cannot endorse and cannot raise funds to pass laws or elect office holders. I don't see anything unreasonable or unconstitutional about this. If any church doesn't want to abide by this, they are free to pay taxes like everyone else.

 

The OP author might be an atheist. I don't know. But he's right. We really don't want to live in a country where PAC's receive tax exempt status because they hold a church service. Churches are free to practice their faith in a tax exempt status. They are not free to raise funds for political activities and remain tax free. This is perfectly fair and equitable.

 

Of course.

Of course.

I have no problem exempting charitable organizations to the extent that they are using the funds for actual charity. But for multibillion-dollar real estate portfolios? For multimillion-dollar sound systems? And, dare I say, for legal defense and compensating its victims? Ahem. Not so much.

There is no doubt that many religious organizations perform good works of charity (just like their secular counterparts). And again, to that extent, they should be tax-exempt. But the rest of it? There is no way they can justify the multimillion-dollar physical plants subsidized by my hard work.

See above.

See above.

Hey look who it is!

 

So all the Christian hostiptals, all the outreach and counseling that churches provide? All the soup kitchens?

Its clear once again that you see only what you want to and are deliberately blind. No worries, I am undoubtedy opressing you by pointing this out?



And of course, pointing out that you are bashing Christianity from a position of ignorance means I am victim? Its a factual statement stud.

In sharp contrast, we are not whining about being the most oppressed people in the world because we are .... not denied edcuation, work, the right to vote, etc.

Nor indeed are we simply dismissing all criticism as wanton hatred rather than rebutting it. We simply rebut it, and, lo and behold, time and again the atheist criticism of Christianity is based in deep ignorance.

Ours? The silliness of agnostic-atheism? The silliness of attempting to make religion a judgement criteria while calling yourself a secularist? The claims of hating prostylexing while flying atheist banners and suing people?

No worries, atheism has always been a total lack of standards.

 

<QUOTE=Me>
There is no doubt that many religious organizations perform good works of charity (just like their secular counterparts). And again, to that extent, they should be tax-exempt.</QUOTE>

 

I'm sorry if some think I'm taking the "wrong" side on this issue, but I'm tired of some of the leadership of the Catholic Church supporting left wing causes and politicians like that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angelos who is extremely left wing and was highly supportive of Clinton and all his cronies. What are conservative Catholics to think when their leaders become so political and support ideologies that are repugnant to us?

I'll tell you what I think. I think the laws should be enforced, the lawbreakers should go to jail and the 501c violators should have their tax exempt status revoked. That's what I think.

 

Sir, I don't think we agree on much. But in this case, I think you know what I mean when I say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I lived in Los Angeles when that sanctimonious pig Mahoney was claiming that "his churches" would be sanctuaries for illegals. Add to that his obstruction of justice vias-a-vis the sex abuse scandals and here is a man who should be rotting in prison along with all the other alien enablers.

 

As John Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

If churches can be taxed, they can be taxed out of existence.

 

So basically, you are saying that to get freedom of speech, you need to pay for it by way of taxes.

 

As the Church was in Jesus time, hey? It was all that property it had back then that caused it to be wiped out, obviously.

 

Agh, you wrote it in big letters so, therefore your position is fully explained.

#1 - you stated that churches should not be granted tax free status.

#2 - when the grounds for that are clarified, that charitable AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS are granted these things . you reply oh yeah, but only to an 'extent' without clarifiying the 'extent'.

#3 - You do realize that the IRA actually checks in on these things and makes sure organizations are following the rules of tax exemption? And of course, we do not see you worrying about the corruption or excesses of ANY other non-profit organiztaion.

#4 - are you totally daft to our doctrine?

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity. (KJV 1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

You do understand that charity in our doctrine is the HIGHEST form of love known and why almost all churches have significant charitiable out reach programs. Those that stray from this line, in almost all cases, have an strong doctrinal authorities that actually check up on them - and when individual churches stray, they are re-trained, ministers or priests are removed, and if necessary the proper law enforcement officials are contacted.

None of this prevents you from first stating the case that religion should be stripped of its tax free status, or from coming up with silly, non-explained standards for denying it.

Its much harder to admit you were wrong then it is to write in big letters like that, in and of itself, is an arguement or rebuttal? No doubt your are victim of not being read or not having quetions answered?

Does sceince or logic state that the VOLUME of an arguement is directly correlated to the strength of an arguement.

As simply as I can state this kiddo, churches are not going to stripped of their tax free status and communities suffer around the country because atheists are too lazy to check things before screaming in opposition.

 

Yep, if we do not allocate resources to things we value - they go away. We do you think atheists spend so much time attacking church finances? Why do you think budget discussion are so frought with emotion?