Y'all said this wouldn't happen

BedellBrave said:
Well no, but I haven't read any statement or article or editorial that they would say monitor, the "Humanist Society of Vermont"'s meetings or the "Alliance to Save the Fuzzy Snails"'s gatherings or the "Federation for Polygamy's Legalization"'s discussions. No, just this statement that they will monitor churches. Monitor churches.
Click to expand...

. . . which are non-profit entities and are prevented from doing a few very specific things—not the things, by the way, that that garbage piece in IBD mentioned. They are laid out in IRS publications that can be found with even the laziest google-fu, they're actually quite reasonable, and they apply to all 501c3s.

This is just another awesome opportunity for pearl-clutching and dreams of persecution.
 
So why might the IRS then settle with the Freedom From Religion Foundation and settle before the case was fully adjudicated? If such statements are quite reasonable and apply to all 501c3s? Not saying they aren't.

Oh, and why so many opportunities?

Not dreaming of persecution at all - just not sticking my head in the sand convinced of the abiding and certain tolerance of American secularists and this silly notion of "American Exceptionalism" when it comes to religious freedom. Such a arrogant idea that we are somehow better in this regard than other Western nations.
 
Here's a sentence from the CT article:

"The FFRF had alleged that the IRS failed to have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt churches and religious organizations, nor did the agency enforce its 501(c)(3) codes against electioneering."

Does the IRS have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt non-religious organizations? Did it enforce its 501c3 codes against electioneering within nonreligious tax-exempt organizations but not with religious ones (putting aside that dubious distinction)?
 
BedellBrave said:
So why might the IRS then settle with the Freedom From Religion Foundation and settle before the case was fully adjudicated? If such statements are quite reasonable and apply to all 501c3s? Not saying they aren't.

Oh, and why so many opportunities?

Not dreaming of persecution at all - just not sticking my head in the sand convinced of the abiding and certain tolerance of American secularists and this silly notion of "American Exceptionalism" when it comes to religious freedom. Such a arrogant idea that we are somehow better in this regard than other Western nations.
Click to expand...

BB, that's my whole point. Look and decide for yourself instead of informing yourself via IBD (what appropriate initials those are).
 
Answer my questions please. The IBD editorial isn't the point. My deciding on the reasonableness of existing guidelines isn't the point. The FFRF and the IRS settling is.

In other words, there are quite active organizations desirous of curbs on churches and religious organizations which hold views contrary to their own and there are those within the governmental bureaucracy that are willing to go along with them to enable erosion in open and free religious expression - again particularly when it is against their own religiously held views.
 
BedellBrave said:
Here's a sentence from the CT article:

"The FFRF had alleged that the IRS failed to have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt churches and religious organizations, nor did the agency enforce its 501(c)(3) codes against electioneering."

Does the IRS have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt non-religious organizations? Did it enforce its 501c3 codes against electioneering within nonreligious tax-exempt organizations but not with religious ones (putting aside that dubious distinction)?
Click to expand...

That's what I was suggesting YOU look into. The answer appears to be yes, they do. Which is exactly my point. Criminy, dude.
 
BedellBrave said:
Here's a sentence from the CT article:

"The FFRF had alleged that the IRS failed to have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt churches and religious organizations, nor did the agency enforce its 501(c)(3) codes against electioneering."

Does the IRS have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt non-religious organizations? Did it enforce its 501c3 codes against electioneering within nonreligious tax-exempt organizations but not with religious ones (putting aside that dubious distinction)?
Click to expand...

I'm going to repeat my answers. Yes, they do. They have monitored and issued guidance for both.

I don't understand your question about the FFRF.

The rules are actually pretty straightforward, and not particularly restrictive. Everybody should follow them, if they want to stay tax-exempt. It is not a burden on religious liberty to be asked not to officially advocate for a candidate during an election year at the risk of losing one's tax-exempt status.
 
Julio, and you actually think that all non-religious (yeah whatever) tax-exempt organizations refrain? FFRF is evidence in and of themselves that they don't.
 
BedellBrave said:
The FFRF and the IRS settling is the point.

In other words, there are quite active organizations desirous of curbs on churches and religious organizations which hold views contrary to their own and there are those within the governmental bureaucracy that are willing to go along with them to enable erosion in open and free religious expression - again particularly when it is against their own religiously held views.
Click to expand...

Why do you guys so fervently hold to American Exceptionalism? Why do you act as if these groups like FFRF are going to ever be satisfied short of a neutered church?

Dang, I despise politicking within a church - I don't want the nose of the political camel in the tent. I've never liked the blatant leftist politics in mainline churches and black churches (which you guys probably don't have a problem with) nor the Republican-rah-rah-RR stuff in many evangelical churches (which is what groups like FFRF and guys like gold are really only concerned about). But, to think that there isn't - at all - a move to erode religious freedom of expression, just boggles my mind. All I get is this knee-jerk "persecution complex" rhetoric from you all.
 
Here's another question for better minds than mine, why are 501c5s allowed political activity and are still tax-exempt, whereas 501c3s are restricted? Why are labor relations given cover but not ideological/philosophical/religious/ educational/charitable ones not?

That's more of a historical question I suppose.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm going to repeat my answers. Yes, they do. They have monitored and issued guidance for both.

I don't understand your question about the FFRF.

The rules are actually pretty straightforward, and not particularly restrictive. Everybody should follow them, if they want to stay tax-exempt. It is not a burden on religious liberty to be asked not to officially advocate for a candidate during an election year at the risk of losing one's tax-exempt status.
Click to expand...

Then why the lawsuit? Why did they settle before the case was dismissed? If they had policies in place and functioning for both so well? FFRF certainly doesn't agree with your assessment. By implication neither does the IRS itself.
 
BedellBrave said:
Then why the lawsuit? Why did they settle before the case was dismissed? If they had policies in place and functioning for both so well? FFRF certainly doesn't agree with your assessment. By implication neither does the IRS itself.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about the functioning of the policies. I know they exist. I have no trouble believing that monitoring and enforcement were, are, and will be paltry, because of the nature of the beast. However, my point was to counteract your garment-rending with the actual FACT that these policies exist, that the groups involved are issued regular guidance on them, and that there is at least some auditing and monitoring of church and non-church groups.

Then you respond with the above, which seems like a fairly blatant moving of ye olde goalepostes.
 
Just for fun here, I'm going to give you a real-life example of something I see nearly every day.

There is a church near my home that uses a prominently displayed marquee to display anti-Obama messages. Really vile stuff, often. Lindsay Graham is another favorite target of theirs. Anyway, this might tend violate the IRS rules about advocacy for/against a candidate, if it were an election year and either of those gentlemen were running.

Having never attended a service there, I can't say that the words from the pulpit are in a similar vein, but it's hardly a stretch to suppose that they are.

So, my question . . .

Is this kind of thing considered to be worship? Free exercise of religion? It's protected speech, sure, but is it speech that should be given a special favored status? That's what you're asking for, right? The right to do what other organizations don't have the right to do, on the basis of it being done in front of a cross? You are asking for special rights and protections for your tribe, because . . . because you think it oughta be that way.

I get it. What you're really asking for is NOT to have the intrusive nose of the government sniffing around your church. I wouldn't want that, either. Still, surely you get that there's a legitimate question here—regardless of political slant.
 
Julio3000 said:
I know nothing about the functioning of the policies. I know they exist. I have no trouble believing that monitoring and enforcement were, are, and will be paltry, because of the nature of the beast. However, my point was to counteract your garment-rending with the actual FACT that these policies exist, that the groups involved are issued regular guidance on them, and that there is at least some auditing and monitoring of church and non-church groups.

Then you respond with the above, which seems like a fairly blatant moving of ye olde goalepostes.
Click to expand...

You say there are policies in place for both. FFRF sued saying there weren't. Are they wrong? If they are wrong why did the IRS settle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top