Mormon Church Spanked

• Their actions do not contitute a violation of tax exempt status (which is basically they can't endorse a candidate)
• The have to keep their book even though they are tax exempt
• Taxing religious organizations is unconstitutional, it violates the 1st amendment.

• Read the reg's Boaner, yes they did and rather blatantly.  Read the restrictions on 501(c)3
• They don't open their books and you're wrong AGAIN that they're required to open their books
• It does?  How so?
  

This skirts the line, boan and you know it. Placing money behind a cause is almost akin to endorsing a candidate. In fact, I'll go so far as to state that they probably had candidates assistance with this cause. It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the church's money made it to candidates through other channels.

In fact, money laundering has been brought up in the state of Maine.

Then, they LIED about the amounts of the contributions and you're going to be the apologist here?

Take your pick of planks that you wish to walk here, dude. You're on your own on this one. Laws are laws, DESPITE what your agenda might be.

In order for them to violate their TE status they would have to designate 15-20 of their annual revenue and a "substantial" amount of man power. Given the size of the LDS, neither is the case.

I stand corrected on the books part. Almost all other (501) organizations are required to file.

That however only goes to further prove my point about it being unconstitutional.

The 1st amendment states;

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

The government must give credence to a religion to decide it's 501 status. Do you think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster gets 501 status? So someone in the government give the yes this is a religion or no this isn't a religion at some point. This violates the religious establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

MF, if they violated the reporting law, it's a completely separate issue from if they violated their 501 status. It seems they violated reporting law and they should be punished just as any other entity would be that violated reporting law.However, even the article states the ruling was unprecedented with means they were treat differently then others in the same situation I'm not even bringing up the idea that the FPPC isn't even a judicial organization which is the only {supposed} way to be penalized in this country, after a fair trial.

A violation is a violation, boan. And no amount of sidestepping will negate that fact. It also speaks loud and clear to the other items that I mentioned. This church has no business in politics. NO church has any business in politics.

And that's the bottom line, regardless of any agenda which may influence your (or my) opinion.

I agree all churches should be restricted from financially supporting any candidate - period.  Their business is God not Government.  I think Jesus once made the comment to the effect of, give to Rome what is Rome's and to my father what is my Father's.  Well something like that anyway.  I have no issue using the pulpit to proclaim one's position within the church environment and even encouraging members to consider backing a given person based on their policies etc.  but no money directly from the church or any official of the church publicly endorsing anyone as an official of said church(s).

Separation of chuch and state is just that and should be strictly enforced IMO.

What part of it appears they violated the law and should be punished was I not clear about?

So I want to get this straight;

• Corporations
• Unions
• "Reproductive Rights" groups
• Gun Owners
• Racial groups
• Global warming kooks
• Socialists

All these people get a say in the government but you think that religious organizations shouldn't?

Are they 501(c)3 Tax exempt?

NOW, NARAL, NRA, ACORN, Greenpeace, NAACP, ...Yes

Which is essentially my point.

So, you agree that other corporations make the same problems, yet the church should get "special" priviledges?

NONE of those examples are "religious" with the possible exception of the relgious "rights" groups mentioned. Religious orgs are clearly defined in the constitution. So are gun owners.

Would you like to buy a vowel?

Then they should be taxed

They were intended to be, quite the opposite. You and AO made the claim the churches should have no say in government. My question is why should every other group have a say in government and not religious organizations.

So tell me where in the Constitution does it limit the actions of religious orgs? Last I checked the Constitution limited GOVERNMENT not the other way around.

It's not int the Constitution, it's in the IRS reg's.  I say they all need to be taxed, why the fuck should someone get a free ride while everyone else gets it in the ass.

Bottom line, if they're politically active it violates the reg's for a 501(c)3 and they should loose it period.

Good questions, Boan. And I actually agree with all when it comes to money and influence. What rubs me the wrong way is that religions portray a "purity" in their actions, which are anything but. Others don't portray this "purity". They just flat out do it. That's WHY I'm extra hard on religions. The hypocrisy stinks more than the rest, even though their actions are the same.

Then, we have bible thumpers like yourself who apologize for their actions which smell just as bad.

Understand?

Boan you have a great point that I failed to consider.  Why should religious organizations be treated differently than any other group - simply put they shouldn't.  If it is a question of their tax free status then all tax free organization should be treated on the same basis - no exceptions. 

MF - "religions portray a "purity" in their actions, which are anything but".    That is a pretty broad generalization to start with and highly subjective.  They are not unlike any other organization (NOW, ACORN, etc., etc. ) other than they have their own"planks to their platform", so I see no valid reason for treating them differently.  The fact that we may or may not find disagreement with an organization simply is not adequate reason for special treatment or consideration under the rule of laws governing them.

It is unfair to draw a distinction between ideological and theological orientation when determining the laws under which an organization is obligated to follow.  Basically an atheist organization and a non-atheist organization should be held to the same secular laws without variance and/or discrimination.  Amazing thought isn't it - the law is to apply equally to all!

I believe in and support the idea that all are to be treated fairly and equally under the laws as well as when applying common sense and laws of nature.  Although I may disagree with and even have strong core values that conflict with another view I do not have a right to preempt or discriminate toward those holding that postion.  This is not to say that I can't speak out and voice opposition but I must recognize we have equall rights under the law.  Otherwise shit simly won't work - current situtions are my case and point.

Bullshit, any organization that is politically active needs to be taxed just like everyone else.  If religions or NRA, or NOW, or Greenpeace etc get a free ride then why in the fuck cant RtH be tax exempt?

I think it should simply be a free-for-all, screw it, open the gates and let the sheep out for god sake!  No restrictions at all - total freedom.  If someone offends you take action - end of story.  May the best man/woman/transvestite  win. I have a line on some suicide vests if anyone wants one real cheap (explosives not included).

AO...

NOW, Acorn, etc. etc are not religions as defined or covered under the constitution.

and the IRS regs come from?------Congress!!!!

and Congress makes laws based on?------the Constitution!

and the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

IRS reg's come from the IRS, Congress in fact does not create them.  Please show me where the IRS reg's are created by Congress?  It's like you trying to say the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) is created by Congress.

Man, talk about pulling answers out of your ass!

Dude....you have got to be joking. I mean seriously. That is the biggest steaming pile of babbling bullshit I have ever seen you post. You actually think that the I.R.S. makes it up as they go along. Hello Constitution. The lawmaking body is.......the IRS!!! ...Er uh nope. Congress.

Here is the tax code as produced and enacted by Congress and the President(s).

Title 26

and specifically if you want to see the "501" Laws it's here. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Part 1, Section 501 (3)(c)

This ends the civics lesson for today. tuition payments are due at the end of the month. Payable in canned (cold) air.

Uh yea...See above.

Yup. That's why Obama is abiding by that constitution, isn't it?

And every other politician for that matter. Look in the mirror, dude. Stupid is as stupid believes, I guess.....

Rephrase that, enforcement is the I.R.S., but who defines what a "Church" is?

If one didn't define it I could say I'm a Church, my home is my Chapel, everything I own is owned by the Church of RtH so everything I earn and have is tax exempt.  So in essence my employer could right off all of my wages since I'm a Church.

Again enforcement "is" the I.R.S.

That's what happens with "black and white" approaches to life.....

The long and the short of it all there should be no tax exempt status for anyone or organization!  No theological or ideological focused group should receive favoritism in my opinion.  That is why we need a consumption tax model - everyone pays accordingly!  End of story.

This is your come back? After asking

IRS
reg's come from the IRS, Congress in fact does not create them.  Please
show me where the IRS reg's are created by Congress?

and the smack down I laid on you? ....lame.....

Anyway a few interesting tidbits I have come across.

• Prior to 501 laws churches paid no taxes regardless of what the did.
• 501 laws (allegedly) were enacted specifically to limit political involvement.
• IRS considers Churches and Religious organizations differently
  
• The IRS Doesn't have a specific definition of a Church  or a religious organization.

• Churches are NOT required to file tax forms. They are automatically exempt.

So since they are automatically exempt, that meets my requirement so I'm cool with it.

Link Here

Your "requirements"???

That is, that ALL churches get a break, just based upon the fact that their into "religion"???

Thanks for the admission, boan!

You actually supported Pagan's point here....

Now, go and be a good boy and say some of your "prayers" for us!

It just reinforces my original point about the whole situation. Churches are tax exempt and that status is not threatened by political involvement. If that was the case it would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

I admitted I was wrong, no I'm not going to kiss your ass so get over yourself

So back to the point, who defines what is a Church?  I say I am a Church of one and under my doctrine all income I receive is tax exempt and my employer who pays my wages can then write all my benefits off as donations to the Church of Pagan.

Furthermore let's say some sick fucks like to fuck young boys, it's in the "Church Gospels" so throwing the sick fucks in jail would violate the 1st?

Get a grip

2 points:

1) the inital flaw in your plan is only individuals make wages.

2) You know as well as I do that rights can't extend to the point of infringment upon anothers person's right which is what you are talking about with your assine example.

2 Points:

1) The flaw is yours when it was an example, this also applies very broadly like for example earlier in the thread I mention RtH.

2) Really so a family belonging to said little boy lover "church" gives their young boy's voluntarily isn't an infringement.

Reality, what a concept eh?

1) evidently that is completely legal since no definition of a church exists. Go ahead try it..

2)Absolutely it's an infringement. That was my point. Just like you can't shoot someone and then claim the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms.

1)  So you're saying anyone can create a Church with any doctrine and be completly tax exempt and above any laws? OK

2)  Really, so you're saying you're saying that if a Church's doctrines say sex with minors is OK and if they try to practice it on their own members it's not an infringement?  OK

1) Exactly you got it!

2) I am saying that a church can NOT declare that sex with a minor is OK. Or rape of ANY person is okay. Their right to practice their religion freely end where a person right not to be violated begins. The same with forcing things upon the church. A person right to be gay and married ends where a church's right to practice there religion begins. That my friend is the beauty of the Constitution.

1)  So Church's are above the law ..... OK 

2) Why not?  You have stated that Church's are "Above the Law".  A Church very well may state that in their doctrine the age of consent is 8 so how could it be "Rape" since you yourself stated that Church's are not bound by any other law other than their own doctrine.

1) I reread your post and see where you put "and above any laws?" in that statement. I am not saying that churches are above all laws, I am saying that it would be impossible for government to tax churches without a specific law targeted at churches. This is forbidden in the Constitution. It is also the reason that any organization that calls itself a church must be accepted as 501(c)(3) (or automatically tax exempt in reality) if not then the government is giving respect and acknowledgment to one religion over another.
2) see above.

1)  So it's only tax laws that are applicable eh?  But you site the 1st amendment, where does it specify only tax laws? 

2)  Yes, see above

boan. Ya shoulda kept your mouth shut when you thought you were "ahead".....

Why? It's Pagan that keeps using imaginary conditions to try to justify his position.

First it was Congress doesn't make tax laws so it's Constitutional.

Then it was Churches are immune to all laws

Then it's only tax law and isn't in the Constitution.

None of which I have stated.

He takes the topic at hand which started by him stating that the Mormon's 501 status should be revoked and they should pay taxes and tries to twist it into a totally different topic, that Churches are above the law. That is after it has been proven that #1 their actions aren't grouds for revocation and 2 even if it is grounds and their 501 is revoked they still don't have to pay taxes because churches are automatically exempt.

It's interesting that he supports people's freedom to marry who they want but not people's freedom to express their religious beliefs.

Who's flipping here dude?  You brought up the 1st Amendment -

The government must give credence to a religion to decide it's 501 status. Do you think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster gets 501 status? So someone in the government give the yes this is a religion or no this isn't a religion at some point. This violates the religious establishment clause of the 1st amendment

1) I reread your post and see where you put "and above any laws?" in that statement. I am not saying that churches are above all laws, I am saying that it would be impossible for government to tax churches without a specific law targeted at churches. This is forbidden in the Constitution. It is also the reason that any organization that calls itself a church must be accepted as 501(c)(3) (or automatically tax exempt in reality) if not then the government is giving respect and acknowledgment to one religion over another.

So in the context you're stating that Church's are above the law in regards to tax's. So where in the 1st does it make ANY specifications?

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 grievance

Silly me, but I don't see anything that specifies tax laws and/or exemptions.  The tax laws specify exemptions with conditions of who is exempt, if whoever doesn't choose to abide by those conditions they loose those exemptions.  So how is this singling out the LDS Church?   If anything using your logic it's a violation of the Constitution to give them tax exempt status.

Me, I say fuckem all, they've all had a free ride way too long and need to pay tax's just like everyone else ya know.

That, boan, is abstract thought, which weighs much more in favor in my teeny weenie little brain, than your black and white synopsis.

I don't know

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Sounds pretty specific to me. It doesn't say make only tax law it says NO law.

And I have already proven that even if you revoke their 501 status, Churches are still exempt because they are automatically exempt with or without 501 status.

So again you're stating that Church's are above the Law

The Constitution is the law.

Well then the Constitution does not apply to Church's and they can continue to fuck little boy's with full immunity.  

501 exemption is a law, boan.....

It is but it's not a requirement to be tax Exempt for Churches. You can read about it HERE.

Again with the flawed logic. Churches don't fuck anyone. Sick people do.