change.orgPosted Oct 8, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC
What we really need is a bunch of Imams, with a good sense of humor, to publicly endorse Romney as "Allah's infidel of choice 2012". I'm sure it would be rationalized with some serious mental gymnastics, but I like to keep my opponents on their toes.
Imams
Sense of humor
I don't think you get how Islam works.
So a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian board a plane... Wait.. wahhh? Hey, dont arrest me. This isnt a terrorist training seminar for plane hijackings. I was telling joke.
That. Would be. Amazing.
Considering that Obama carried out Drone attacks on Pakistan, the hub of terrorism, and also got Bin Laden ... Romney would be the preferred candidate for terrorists.
Considering that the standing of terrorists increases in their own societies when they have evil villains and hawks to fight (and they can get money out of administrations which will break US law to give them arms and the like) I am sure they would like to see Reagan and beyond
[deleted]
What we really need is a bunch of Imams, with a good sense of humor, to publicly endorse Romney as "Allah's infidel of choice 2012".
Maybe we can get the boys at the CIA to revive their Adam Gadahn or Ayman Al Zawahiri characters.
So long as PACs and Super PACs are legal the whole IRS pulpit exepmtion is pretty stupid. Churches can form political commities to support candidates and they're completely legal. The whole IRS sanction on Pulpits is pretty moot so long as PACs are here.
actually, what these church-guys want is to be able to stand in front of their congregations and say they like ______ for president and so does god. has nothing to do with donating infinite amounts of money to them. they want to tell people that GOD wants their vote, not have to try to earn it with deceptive ads!
Exactly, they want to bypass the whole "make your own mind up" bit and skip straight into "If you don't vote Romney you will burn in hell".
And this is a problem because?
I just find it Ironic a Preacher could pulpit for a PAC but not an actual candidate; so he could Indirectly support the candidate himself. Let's say there is a "Better Tomorrow" PAC which supports Romney; the Mormon Stake President wouldn't be breaking any laws if he addressed the entire church saying we need to support this PAC and donate money to it. Now he wouldn't be saying vote for Romney directly, but most people would get the idea; all he would have to do is substitute "Better Tomorrow" for Romney and well he has a completely legal workaround. This is why I think the whole pulpit ban it pointless, either get rid of PACS, or get rid of the pulpit law itself all together.
Up vote for logic
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's take emotion out of this debate.
If you say we anti-SOPA, anti-PIPA, but pro limiting the speech of churches from the pulpit, you are pro-censorship. But you say well they are religious, therefore they shouldn't speak their beliefs, if you don't believe in god why do you care if they are saying he agrees with them?
Why? Why is it that we say it's wrong to have Marijuana law's and we should not follow them but its ok for this?
Why is it ok for a church which if you take the religious aspect away become a (get this a 501(c)(7) — Social and Recreational Clubs) which are not bound by the same restrictions?
The FSM cannot say who he agrees with so let's step back and look at the moral standings. If we do not want the Muslims to say that we cannot insult Muhammad why even start down the slippery slope of saying what religious organizations say.
I am surprised at you reddit, you should be ashamed. If every person went to church on Sunday and was told to vote for Romney else they were going to hell don't you think that would make many people on the edge stop going or question their beliefs?
Let's face it, if you give soulless corporations person hood but not the place that invented souls person hood are you not being hypocritical?
I mean if logic is what you believe in, you cannot be emotional and you end up coming to points of view you do not like.
Not all churches are bad, if anything what would reddit have to complain about on a daily basis?
Bring on the downvotes...
SOPA and PIPA are in no way similar to churches advocating a political party. If the president of the Mormons were to give a speech at their general conference and said "Make sure to vote for Romney this November, as Jesus Christ would have us do" a large number of Mormons would do just that, if only because their prophet said it. Now this may be a rocky example, because Romney is a Mormon, but the same thing would have happened if they backed McCain or Obama. Essentially, a single man has a huge sway over millions of votes, which opens up a lot of room for special interest groups. Something as small as backing a candidate wouldn't shake a fringe believers faith for a group like the Mormons.
The religious aspect is precisely why they can't be allowed to have a voice. Nobody believes they're going to hell if they don't follow the ideologies of their local soccer club.
I just find it Ironic a Preacher could pulpit for a PAC but not an actual candidate; so he could Indirectly support the candidate himself. Let's say there is a "Better Tomorrow" PAC which supports Romney; the Mormon Stake President wouldn't be breaking any laws if he addressed the entire church saying we need to support this PAC and donate money to it. Now he wouldn't be saying vote for Romney directly, but most people would get the idea; all he would have to do is substitute "Better Tomorrow" for Romney and well he has a completely legal workaround.
This is why I think the whole pulpit ban it pointless, either get rid of PACS, or get rid of the pulpit law itself all together.
I'm upvoting you because there is no reason to downvote because they disagree with you; your statement is completely on-topic and valid.
Wouldn't have voted either way had you not had "Not all..." apologist nonsense and then "ur all gunna downvote me" whining afterward.
You do realize that an apology is greek for speaking in defense.... It has nothing to do with religion, it just means your defending a point of view. To have a debate you have to have 2 sides. Each attacks the premises or the weakness in the logic, perhaps a little philosophy, (which is you know... a decent thing to have atheists and theists alike to learn)
If knowledge is power attack the argument, where is the fallacies?What part was nonsense?
Wasn't commenting on the rest of your post, simply those two annoying aspects.
"Not all of them" is a crappy defense about any topic. Its a meaningless statement. Of course 100% of any group doesn't match any general statement. Its meaningless... it's as bad as advertising speak like "Payments as low as...", meaningless.
And "you're going to downvote me" is annoying as well. As well as the "You should be ashamed reddit", "you're all hypocritical", nonsense. The whole post reeks of it, and it's annoying. It doesn't add to the discussion, and as such, I downvoted it.
Annoying isn't it?
while, yes, the churches are breaking the law by doing this. think of the media shitstorm that would come if they had their tax exemption revoked. "Obama's war on religion taking money away from poor christians"
nobody would care about the facts...just that their beliefs are "under attack"
Sometimes I wonder what actually would happen if this were strictly enforced? If anyone here peruses Freerepublic (it's a sick fascination for me), it seems many far-right conservative Christians are looking forward to a day when they can let loose as Christian Soldiers and literally rise up against the government. This could be gasoline to the tinder that was already lit when Obama was elected.
I'm pretty sure that's just an example of internet tough guy syndrome. On the other end of every violent paragraph is some fat fuck sitting in his mom's basement. This is not a truth limited by demographics.
I think though there's a difference between younger, fatter internet fucks, and older, angrier gun-wielding teabaggers. Revolution is on the tip of the tongue in most threads revolving around gun control, international issues and religion (specifically where a muslim may or may not be involved). I'm shocked regularly that the FBI isn't tracking posters on that site for incitement or treason.
Im pretty sure domestic terrorism has plenty of people keeping watch.
You don't have any real perspective on how the world works.
IRS won't touch them, especially not right now.
Not until November 7. It's not that far off. :)
Nah, they still won't touch them. They're political overlords won't let them, because if it went to court, they would spin it as an attack against their religious freedoms, and that isn't a fight anyone is willing to take right now.
The IRS answers to no man. Everyone fears them. They even have scenarios set up so that in the event of a nuclear apocalypse (ala Fallout) they would still be able to collect taxes. Obama and Romney don't have shit on that.
The IRS as a organization is feared, but IRS agents, as individuals, are more vulnerable. Nobody wants to lose their nice, cushy, paper-pushing job.
Even if that is true, I still feel we should all vote on this so that the message is heard that they SHOULD lose their tax exempt status at some (hopefully near) future time.
Oh, agreed completely, if nothing else, than because them's the rules. They get to be tax-exempt, as long as they follow the rules. They didn't follow them, therefore, no more tax exempt.
In true theocratic fashion, if they can get away with something, it doesn't count as wrong.
Don't miss Theocracy Tuesday.
I'm a Canadian, but have an up vote.
*have an upvote, eh?
They all look like upvotes from down here.
from another Canadian: I'm really sorry ...
If there were any more "ups" in those "votes" they'd be in the Arctic!
Its Total bullshit that they don't pay taxes in the first place! Now they pull this....
Churches do pay taxes, just not all of them.
Even if IRS won't touch them, I think it's important to keep this subject alive. I hope more people will upvote.
Thou shalt not lie... ? They promised to not endorse candidates. They're endorsing candidates. Ergo, they will burn in hell... right?
No, no, no. It's okay to lie if you're lying for Christ.
Lying is all a matter of perception. For more information, ask your pastor or someone else who can tell you what to think.
What the pastors say is true.... from a certain point of view.
[deleted]
They didn't promise anything of the sort. They said they were going to endorse candidates and then did.
Not exactly... do you know what the basic idea of Christianity is?
WTF is with all the petitions around here lately? I'm about as likely to start believing in Jesus as I am to believe that petitions are capable of changing anything. Such hypocrisy that we condemn people for praying and then we do something that literally has about the same success rate.
Any chane we can go back to posting about atheism?
EDIT: Btw if you sign up for change.org enjoy the infinite spam emails you will recieve from them putting you on all their marketing lists and selling your email to other companies - you didnt' think they made their money from running petitions did you? How could there be any money in that?
Why are all the recent petitions on change.org? What happened to We The People, where we were guaranteed a response to popular petitions? I just have a hard time giving my information to a random, for-profit site.
Pretty sure the actual "we, the people" gave up en masse on that site after the marijuana legalization petition that basically got a response of "drugs are bad".
Turns out it was nothing more than a political tool to make it look like they were listening, but really, they aren't. They never are.
I remember that now. I suppose I fail to see how this is an improvement. I'm not anti-petition, just skeptical.
Right, because it's just obvious that the President should shaft everyone else in the country and instantly change the platform he was elected on if you and your buds all agree that marijuana should be legal and vote that on a website.
It's not the lack of change that bothered people. It was the way they ignored most of the logical arguments in the in the petition and replied with basically "they're illegal because they're bad".
Also, i believe at the time it was the most signed petition on the site.
The answer is very simple: tax the whole superstition/belief industry without any exception.
Oh hey, another online petition? Bet that'll do something... somewhere.... for someone.
"If you could reason with religious people... there would be no religious people"
[deleted]
You could always just copy the URL and share that to Facebook normally
[deleted]
You can click into those titles and edit them when you paste the link. You can also edit the descriptions by clicking into them as well.
Perhaps a better approach would be to for secular charitable organzations that have electioneering as a clear part of their missions and then have them apply for tax exempt status. Then, challenge the denials in court. Replace "you can't so that!" with "if you are going to do that, we will do it too."
The point is not that they cannot speak freely. It's that they're in the very rare position of being permitted to gather revenue and not be taxable. In exchange for that massive privilege, there are rules.
This is a baiting game. Most of these pastors WANT the IRS to come after them, so that they can have their day in court. This is their stated objective. They want to complete their painting of "Evil Hitler Obama's Administration destroying the free excercise of Christianity in this once-sacred, now-shat-upon Holy Land of God's (Other) Chosen People." If they have Obama's Dept of Justice and Obama's IRS "persecuting" Christians in the courtroom to clamp down on their free speech, then it's no longer just James Dobson and Sean Hannity adding brushstrokes to this picture.
They will claim that their free speech is being hampered if they cannot express political views from the pulpit. The fine line is that they ABSOLUTELY can say whatever they want, but that they cannot simultaneously enjoy a tax-free status. The quagmire for the Justice Dept, The Supreme Court, and the IRS is deciding what constitutes partisan political speech, and what does not. Will the IRS need an agent in every congregation, listening for key words? Will the CIA and the NSA bug every pulpit? If the Right Wangers can use the Health Care Debate to convince you that Evil Democrats want to form death panels to kill your Mee-Maw and your Pop-Pop, then they'll surely use this to convince everyone that Muslim Obama will clamp down on Christians' free speech, to make sure they have no say in the Political world, so that he can continue his apologetic handover of this once-great country to snaggle-toothed, burqa-distributing, atheist-Islamo-Fascists. This would be a battle to make the Healthcare Debates look like a Grade School shoving match. This would be a nuclear culture war (at least, on the Right).
I say: avoid the quagmire altogether. Do not force the issue in court, but recognize the absurdity of the entire situation. One cannot parse every sermon to determine if it's content is taxable or not, much less decide exactly where to draw that line. Isn't it silly that churches (or any non-profits, really) get exempt from taxes in the first place? Why do they not have to pay the property taxes that subsidize local public utilities that connect to their plumbing system? Why do they not have to pay the taxes that pave roads and fund public transportation bringing worshippers to their front door? The policemen overtime for working traffic detail in front of busy churches on Sunday? These are costs of existing in Society, and that is why we all pay them. If any non-profit wants badly enough to exist, then it should be able to pay their taxes in the same way they pay their electric bill. Would you not be a little upset if the gleaming new MEGAchurch down the road had their electric bill comped, and that additional cost was distributed to your entire neighborhood's respective bill? Why should taxes be any different?
I'll concede that calling for the end of tax-exemptions on non-profits and churches today would be politically inexpedient (check that; impossible). But they're already floating the idea in (the admittedly more secular) debt-ridden Spain. Nevertheless it's worth bring these points up with people and starting the conversation.
TL:DR: We shouldn't be talking about revoking the tax-exempt status of just these churches, we should be talking about revoking the tax-exempt status of ALL OF THEM.
So they can actually, actively endorse candidates? No thanks
They are already opening endorsing candidates.
My understanding is that they believe they aren't in violation of the law - that's why they sent videos to the IRS. They're basically trying to encourage the IRS to come after them, so they can sue and (they think) win.
That's true. The problem is, the IRS refuses to enforce the law. Over 500 did it last year, with no repercussions.
If the IRS refuses to enforce long enough, then the anti-American cultists will have a case in court.
Yup, every time the IRS ignores this, they are stamping their seal of approval on it.
Too bad that it's too much to hope that this would be the first step in eliminating the tax exemption for churches.
for the last time, if we allow them to pay taxes they will have a say in our government. i do NOT want the opinion of any church to matter in politics! why do people on here seem to want the separation of church and state to be done away with? i thought you guys were atheists.
Look. They're pushing political shit already, which they're not supposed to be doing. The situation you're worried about is the situation we already have. So either A) they should lose their tax-exempt status, or B) they need to be convinced to cut that shit out - and threatening their tax-exempt status might well accomplish that.
That's not the way government works.
This is not true. My company pays taxes and yet, it doesn't have a say in politics.
"i do NOT want the opinion of any church to matter in politics!"
You're too late, that ship sailed about five minutes after the Constitution was ratified. So I see it the other way around - given how much their opinion already matters in politics, they should damn well chip in and pay their share like everyone else.
Yup, every time the IRS ignores this, they are stamping their seal of approval on it.
Too bad that it's too much to hope that this would be the first step in eliminating the tax exemption for churches.
Kill yourself
The problem is that enforcing this in an election year is political suicide, regardless of the legalities. Maybe something might happen if Obama had nothing to lose.
A man who won't show his convictions when he has something to lose but waits until he has nothing to lose, doesn't have any convictions.
A man who is will not sacrifice pawns will lose the game.
Sorry to be the local conservative but.... Obama has convictions? ;)
Also:
COME ON PASTORS?!?! WTF?? EVER HEARD OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
I feel better now.
Addendum: Decided to add a clarification of my politics for those who probably believe that I am inconsistent. I am a conservative libertarian. Any interference with government in my life is a bad thing. I think the government exists in order to build roads and keep the military running. That's it. Anything else is outside what I think their purpose is. Welfare, Medicare, you name it- it all should be left to private charity. Mitt Romney is bad, but Obama is worse.
At least Romney says he will try to stop the insane amount of spending- which I hope will shrink government influence- Obama seems to just want to keep on spending.
That being said, all the politicians I see nowadays are lying sleeze-balls.
Judging from the downvote from earlier- you all probably don't agree with the conservative part.
Exactly. I refuse to vote for Obama this time around, and all my friends think I don't understand the lessor of two evils thing. I understand that just fine, but I refuse to vote for someone who lied to me. I don't care if it means we get a shitballs president. If we keep voting for liars because they are a better choice than the other guy how are they (politicians) ever going to learn the lesson?
How long is the statute of limitations?
Three to six years depending on what and how much they omitted.
Does America not have public institutions that are separate from the absolute control of the Executive? This is an honest question because under the system we have in NZ (and I'm sure is copied from the UK/Commonwealth), the executive can set broad targets and goals for ministries, but cannot interfere with the day-to-day running of organizations like the IRD (our IRS) or police .
While I don't believe that Obama has direct power, it would be silly to think he had no influence. I'd suspect that the people at the top of these organizations will respond to his suggestions were he to ask.
The controlling party gets blamed for everything.
Yes. And the election will be over in 4 weeks.
Imagine if you sent in a video of you putting false records into your return for a bigger check come April... I wonder if they'd be so lax.
The IRS refuses to enforce because they know they will lose in court. These pastors WANT it to go to court to get the law overturned. Sounds like the pastors got the upper hand on this one...
They also want it to go to court so when they lose they can cry martyr and watch their collection plates fill.
Free speech is in the constitution, but the tax exemption isn't.
If the IRS loses on the Free Speech front, they can simply end the exemption.
They won't lose in court. There is no right to automatic tax exempt status.
So why the hesitance to enforce the law?
Can you imagine that going to court? The IRS vs Jesus? The public would go batshit crazy like never before. They're already happy to assault and kill people for not worshipping their approved way, openly eager to ignore or change laws preventing theocracy. Take a near universally maligned entity like the IRS, even in the right and enforcing the law, and pit it against their beloved religious leaders. Even if Jesus said that "render into Caesar" line, they do not care. They will burn and kill with impunity.
Except most Americans think churches are too involved in politics.
http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/Americans-Continue-To-Be-Wary-of-Church-Involvement-in-Partisan-Politics.aspx
*unto
Thank you. If only you were my phone's autocorrect I might not text like a moron so often.
Technically what they believe is that they are in violation of the law, but that the law is unconstitutional, and they want the opportunity to try to have it stricken down as such by the Supreme Court.
I think what they don't realize is, there is no right to not be taxed. No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it state that the government cannot tax religious institutions. They're shooting themselves in the foot.
This. The leader of this pulpit movement was on Colbert, and he kept hammering on that this violated his right to speech. But that's not the real issue. He's perfectly free to say what he wants, but as you said, there is no right to tax exemption. I was so disappointed in Colbert for not calling him out on that.
That's too bad. You'd think Colbert would have played them better.
But the government has already decided that certain organizations (like religions and charities) will be tax exampt, and this goes back hundreds of years. However, at some point much more recently, the government decided that if you are tax exempt, you cannot endorse political candidates. This is what they are challenging on first amendment grounds, whether or not the government could tax religious institutions doesn't actually enter into it. I don't necessarily think they should be allowed to endorse candidates, but I do see the angle they're coming from.
You have it mixed up. Tax exemption for churches was enacted specifically to get them out of the political ring, and they signed up for it fully knowing the conditions they would have to follow. It wasn't fine print that was tacked on later.
I think its less to do with them "winning" and more to be able to then show their parishioners that Christianity IS being attacked by that Muslim Obama.
As much as I sooo would like to see ALL religious institutions to loose their undeserved tax-free status, this is not the time, nor place to go after these guys.
They are essentially asking to get dragged into court, and in doing so, it would mobilize their followers even more to hate the big bad gob'ment.
So as long as they say the president is against them, the president can't enforce laws on them... so we have to wait for a republican president that they put their stamp of approval on to enforce the law on them?
Tell me where that sounds fucked up.
Of course that's fucked up.
But again, there is a time and place for everything. This is not one of them.
You need public opinion on your side to go after entrenched institutions like that. It could have been done back in the late 60s and into the 70s when the church didn't have the same political power it has today. But in today's world? That's suicide to attack these folks... They might lose X% to taxes (assuming they even lose), but would gain all that back and more by energizing their base.
They are against any president or group who WOULD stand up to them, that's my point. There will never be a time when you have a president (or any elected official) they like who is willing to stand up to them. And waiting for political power to wane by allowing them to bypass laws just doesn't seem like it will work.
But we are not against churches getting donations. we are against them not paying taxes on them. The more donations they receive the more the government takes, it's a win/win.
These pastors want the IRS to come after them. They want to challenge the laws using a First Amendment defense. The IRS really doesn't want to lose that arguement so they're stuck in a perpetual state of limbo... While I do think these entities should lose their tax-exempt status, I certainly don't want a precedent on the books that says religious agendas can be promulgated from religious pulpits with the full force of government behind it. Rock and a hard place...
They won't win on first amendment grounds. The IRS wouldn't be denying them their right to free speech. They would simply be telling them that their right to a tax exempt status comes with certain conditions. They a right to choose either the tax exempt status or the right to make political endorsements, but not both. And the right to tax exempt status is not constitutionally protected and can be withdrawn.
There's definitely a an argument for a First Amendment challenge.
If you don't endorse a candidate, then you have a tax exemption. If you do everything exactly the same, but do endorse a candidate, then you are taxed. This essentially means that the tax is on the endorsement of a candidate, and as such would violate the freedom of speech.
There are many other conditions that go along with claiming tax exempt status. Violating any one of them would also exclude an organisation from the benefits of tax exempt status. Remaining politically neutral should not be treated any differently.
Again, it's not restricting their right to free speech. It's restricting their right to a benefit from the government if they choose to exercise that right in a way contrary to the terms of said benefit.
They would probably win. The IRS knows this. Taxes could be seen as a method to limit freedom of religion by pricing less desirable, fringe religions out of business. Some may say who cares, but a lot of people do. I have no love for religion, but most church goers and churches are decent everyday people that just want something they find comforting and fulfilling in their life. I do not want to take that from them. The goal shouldn't be to strip other's right so there equal with us, but to force them to give us the same rights.
"I have no love for alcohol, but most bar goers and bars decent everyday people that just want something they find comforting and fulfilling in life."
So bars shouldn't pay taxes either?
If you are trying to equate alcohol with churches than there is no debating with you. Not taxing churches is a central component of freedom of religion.
Now if you wanted to attack my argument directly and in a more efficient manner you would point out that any social club that needs a dedicated physical space and does not function with the intent to make a profit should be tax exempt and should receive the proper waivers to not have the goods and service they need to maintain their club taxed. In which case I would agree with you.
Speaking of no point in debating...
So when I go to Kinko's and print out protest signs, there no sales tax? News to me.
No, they think first amendment supersedes the Johnson amendment and it is unconstitutional. The only way to get this to attention is to violate that they will get a court case. 2100 attorneys standing by from the Alliance Defending Freedom that started this. It was attorneys and not churches that started this.