Time to rescind tax free status from religious institutions

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fund reparations through taxing the churches, in perpetuity 

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If we got rid of all the religious books and all of the science books, they’d eventually get re-written...The science books would be pretty much the same. 

Not if our ‘woke’ society cancelled Dead White European Males.😊

[Brisketexan 105143]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Think that part would be missing from religious text if they started over in the year 2021

Fair.

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

43 minutes ago, Cacti said:

Not if our ‘woke’ society cancelled Dead White European Males.😊

If I want your opinion I’ll tune into Fox News and get it directly from the source. 

[Cacti 191]

23 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If I want your opinion I’ll tune into Fox News and get it directly from the source. 

Such a tacky reply, especially considering I put a smiley face at the end of my comment.

Geez…atheists not only don’t have a god, they have no sense of humor.  

[Nivek 16930]

On 6/17/2021 at 6:20 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

I can’t even begin to keep track of the argument you’re making or who you’re having it with, but the simple answer is: churches have a tremendous amount of latent political power that they cannot and do not deploy because they are treated as tax-exempt non profits. If you begin to tax them, the most ruthless and wealthiest of them will still exist, will still take in plenty of money— and all that latent political power will be deployed actively and that will be a bad thing. I promise you that Osteen would love his own Lakewood Super PAC, he’s not holding back because he “doesn’t have to have one.”  And I can also promise that even with only 75K employees, more Senators and Secretaries across party lines take calls from the XOM CEO before TV pastors, even with all those eyeballs on the screen. 

Well, I am taking care of little kids so I can be disjointed in my postings.   

Your assurances are not really worth much to me.  They need to be taxed and treated like every other company.  If they choose to form superpacs then so be it.   Your last sentence doesn't mean much.  Yeah, Exxon pays politicians.  Osteen pays himself, so a politician would naturally take the money call first.    What is to stop Osteen from forming or donating to a superpac today?  There was a Christian Superpac formed in 2020 to shit on Trump.   So why can Osteen not do it?    

[Nivek 16930]

On 6/17/2021 at 3:58 PM, Brisketexan said:

You think that shit already happens?  Just wait until you dissolve any semblance of a barrier between them.  It gets a lot worse.   It's not like we don't have stacks of history books full of examples.

And anything that results in fewer churches is good?  Groovy, you do you.  And you're even partially right.  There will be "fewer churches."  Just like, through the process of manipulation and regulatory capture, there are "fewer cable TV providers" etc.  How's that working out for us?  You will end up with "fewer churches"....and a handful of VERY large and powerful churches, who I am confident you will HATE.  I bet I would.

Isn't streamlining business what made america great (for Carnegie)? 

[Nivek 16930]

On 6/17/2021 at 12:12 PM, Brisketexan said:

Sorry, but that's flatly wrong.

Taxes are absolutely a governmental tool to influence behavior and implement gov't policy, and always have been (going back to the crown, when we were colonies).  They aren't just a neutral fundraising mechanism.

Giving a tax credit for an electric car or solar panels isn't "neutral" -- they're policy actions to favor green transportation and energy.

"Sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes aren't "neutral" -- they are policy actions to disfavor harmful vices.

 

I just pulled out a couple of easy ones....there are 11 billion other ones in both state and federal tax codes.  Taxation inevitably creates policy winners and losers, and the government -- or actually, the people who created the government from the get-go -- decided that with respect to causing policy impacts on religious enterprises, our approach is

I keep coming back to this post.  I don't see how property tax is the equivalent of an added sin tax on cigarettes.   A valid argument can be made that smokers cost the society more in health care so a tax on smoking products would help offset some of the cost.   Tax credits are indeed designed to influence purchasing and encourage people to participate in a program usually deemed for the greater good.  

Property tax, income tax are not behavioral based taxes but a revenue stream to pay for goods and services provided by our government.  When the government decides to remove taxes via exemptions they just sanctioned something and got involved.  Not getting involved would be to treat them as other citizens and allow them the honor to pay for the roads, busses, and bullets that we all enjoy.  Instead, they get the benefit of those roads, busses, and bullets without the burden of paying for them.   

 

 

[NWBuck 8568]

As a reminder... last time the country tried to remove religious groups' tax free status, we ended up with Fallwell and the Moral Majority.

Be careful what you wish for...

[Willfully Horn 8017]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Yes, in terms of the mythology, they’d be very different.

[Willfully Horn 8017]

Double post

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Nvmd

[Nivek 16930]

In my reading queue.

[Nivek 16930]

As a reminder... last time the country tried to remove religious groups' tax free status, we ended up with Fallwell and the Moral Majority.
Be careful what you wish for...

I am very casablanca shocked that 959worldwide has not posted about how religious organizations stay out of politics due to their tax status given the recent news.

Brisket how do you feel now?

[RDCanecutter 26445]

I propose a compromise. No matter what our beliefs on the questions at hand, we can all unite behind the idea of banning hymn lyrics projected on a screen with a little bouncy ball showing which words to sing.

[bad_teammate 13195]

3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I propose a compromise. No matter what our beliefs on the questions at hand, we can all unite behind the idea of banning hymn lyrics projected on a screen with a little bouncy ball showing which words to sing.

this

Just go to church more often so you know the damned songs, heathens

[Brisketexan 105143]

I am very casablanca shocked that 959worldwide has not posted about how religious organizations stay out of politics due to their tax status given the recent news.

Brisket how do you feel now?

I stated my point in the other thread, and also, straw man. I never said that religious groups “stay out of politics.” Just like the government doesn’t completely “stay out of religion.”

What I did say, and continue to say, is that the govt generally staying out of the affairs of churches, including via the powerful intervention of taxation, with the companion restriction on churches not acting as political entities, is better than the alternative. It’s not perfect, or absolute. It’s relative. So, two different concepts.

Further, while I disagree with the RCC’s approach on this particular issue….it’s a matter of conscience, related to government action/inaction, on which a group is commenting. Because that’s what any group of people who share a set of ethical beliefs will do when an issue that happens to be political intersects with a matter of conscience.

There are groups that are more race-based in nature who oppose the death penalty based on its racial bias. There are Catholic groups who oppose the death penalty because they believe life is sacred and can only be taken by God. They will always speak out.

To bring it home, the American approach of the state generally staying out of affairs of the church, and the church generally staying out of the affairs of the state (and believe it or not, relatively speaking, they do - compare to many other countries) is just about the best alternative compared to other options.

[TwiceHorn 31475]

On 6/18/2021 at 4:34 PM, Brisketexan said:

Would they?

We have had multiple faiths spring up around the world, independently of each other.  Yet all -- in terms of scripture and tenets -- seem to have the same formula.  There's a supreme being(s), you should love/revere that being, you should love your fellow man, you should show hospitality to the stranger, etc.  I mean, it's a high school student of religion cliche, but not without some truth -- almost all religions are the same, when you get down to it.

If man hit the reset button and created religion from scratch, it would end up looking a lot like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. look today.

AA gets some shiz because to many people it appears to be Christian (or simply that it involves "God").  But the reality is that people from all faith traditions see their own religion in it.

The founders of it took pains to try to extract as much religion from the program as possible.  And they largely succeeded.

Edited June 19, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Willfully Horn 8017]

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Pruned

[Gil Bang 25960]

On 6/17/2021 at 11:22 AM, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  And believe me, if she managed to make it a money-making enterprise, I'd be all for it.  Several times, I've pitched to her the idea of us becoming a great televangelist huckster couple, making millions off of the suckers, but she stubbornly insists on "good theology" and "being a good person."  I swear, I have no idea why I married her.

ZERO disagreement from me.  Cruel discrimination pisses me off.  Cruel discrimination in the name of religion -- most every one of which preaches that the essence of God is love -- takes that rage to 11+.  It's utter dickishness squared.

what if, at some point, she decided to leave it all behind, move to California, shave her pussy, and learn how to surf?  

[Nivek 16930]

13 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

what if, at some point, she decided to leave it all behind, move to California, shave her pussy, and learn how to surf?  

so Lori Petty?

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

16 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

To be fair, a lot of people who call themselves pro-life will pay for an abortion if their 15-year-old daughter gets knocked up because they “don’t want to ruin three lives.” 

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

Haven’t read thread, has anyone mentioned making them have public accounting?

[956 Worldwide 34715]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I stated my point in the other thread, and also, straw man. I never said that religious groups “stay out of politics.” Just like the government doesn’t completely “stay out of religion.”

What I did say, and continue to say, is that the govt generally staying out of the affairs of churches, including via the powerful intervention of taxation, with the companion restriction on churches not acting as political entities, is better than the alternative. It’s not perfect, or absolute. It’s relative. So, two different concepts.

Further, while I disagree with the RCC’s approach on this particular issue….it’s a matter of conscience, related to government action/inaction, on which a group is commenting. Because that’s what any group of people who share a set of ethical beliefs will do when an issue that happens to be political intersects with a matter of conscience.

There are groups that are more race-based in nature who oppose the death penalty based on its racial bias. There are Catholic groups who oppose the death penalty because they believe life is sacred and can only be taken by God. They will always speak out.

To bring it home, the American approach of the state generally staying out of affairs of the church, and the church generally staying out of the affairs of the state (and believe it or not, relatively speaking, they do - compare to many other countries) is just about the best alternative compared to other options.

To be fair to the RCC, the death penalty isn’t a question of what “Catholic groups” believe, it’s just “the Catholic Church.” It’s in the catechism and everything. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I stated my point in the other thread, and also, straw man. I never said that religious groups “stay out of politics.” Just like the government doesn’t completely “stay out of religion.”

What I did say, and continue to say, is that the govt generally staying out of the affairs of churches, including via the powerful intervention of taxation, with the companion restriction on churches not acting as political entities, is better than the alternative. It’s not perfect, or absolute. It’s relative. So, two different concepts.

Further, while I disagree with the RCC’s approach on this particular issue….it’s a matter of conscience, related to government action/inaction, on which a group is commenting. Because that’s what any group of people who share a set of ethical beliefs will do when an issue that happens to be political intersects with a matter of conscience.

There are groups that are more race-based in nature who oppose the death penalty based on its racial bias. There are Catholic groups who oppose the death penalty because they believe life is sacred and can only be taken by God. They will always speak out.

To bring it home, the American approach of the state generally staying out of affairs of the church, and the church generally staying out of the affairs of the state (and believe it or not, relatively speaking, they do - compare to many other countries) is just about the best alternative compared to other options.

Kevin appears to be confusing “religious people being involved in politics“ with “churches behaving as political actors.”

Anyone in this country can start a PAC, engage in political speech, and make campaign donations, even preachers. But the SBC cannot. Lakeway Church cannot. The Archdiocese of Galveston cannot.

And that’s a HUGE and important freaking distinction. 

[Nivek 16930]

18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I stated my point in the other thread, and also, straw man. I never said that religious groups “stay out of politics.” Just like the government doesn’t completely “stay out of religion.”

What I did say, and continue to say, is that the govt generally staying out of the affairs of churches, including via the powerful intervention of taxation, with the companion restriction on churches not acting as political entities, is better than the alternative. It’s not perfect, or absolute. It’s relative. So, two different concepts.

Further, while I disagree with the RCC’s approach on this particular issue….it’s a matter of conscience, related to government action/inaction, on which a group is commenting. Because that’s what any group of people who share a set of ethical beliefs will do when an issue that happens to be political intersects with a matter of conscience.

There are groups that are more race-based in nature who oppose the death penalty based on its racial bias. There are Catholic groups who oppose the death penalty because they believe life is sacred and can only be taken by God. They will always speak out.

To bring it home, the American approach of the state generally staying out of affairs of the church, and the church generally staying out of the affairs of the state (and believe it or not, relatively speaking, they do - compare to many other countries) is just about the best alternative compared to other options.

It was 956WW that made a comment about religion staying out of politics when it is clear and there are numerous examples of religion getting involved.   Sometimes even on the correct (decent) side (civil rights).  

I suppose we are just at a fork here.  I see taxation of religious institutions as their contribution to society 'skin in the game' (as tahoe used to put it).  And while I would prefer that religion stay out of of politics and government stay out of religion I just do not see that as ever happening (religion staying out).  That religious organizations were lobbying and receiving bailouts from the government demonstrates how clearly they are embedded in politics without the need for superpacs that 956WW was threatening.   

I am not asking you to defend his position mind you.  I am just disagreeing to the idea that our current system is not the closest to your defined ideal relationship, but rather and example of religious institutions having a foothold in government while socializing their existence to non-members which is the worst of outcomes.  I pay for it, then pay some more.   All across our nation people use fiat money which includes "in God we trust" and children have to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance or mumble through a portion as our religion stays out of politics and education.    Here is the thing, I am not even asking that they change, just pay their own way for once.  Maybe let God provide, instead of me. 

Catholics get bailout   

 

 

 

[Nivek 16930]

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Kevin appears to be confusing “religious people being involved in politics“ with “churches behaving as political actors.”

Anyone in this country can start a PAC, engage in political speech, and make campaign donations, even preachers. But the SBC cannot. Lakeway Church cannot. The Archdiocese of Galveston cannot.

And that’s a HUGE and important freaking distinction. 

Not really.  There is zero effective difference between the Osteen SuperPac than the Bob SuperPac (funded by Osteen) or the Lakewood SuperPac (funded by Osteen) in how they operate.   Shuffling of papers is simply a sleight of hand that has you convinced there is some inherent difference instead of paying attention to the man behind the curtain.    

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

28 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Not really.  There is zero effective difference between the Osteen SuperPac than the Bob SuperPac (funded by Osteen) or the Lakewood SuperPac (funded by Osteen) in how they operate.   Shuffling of papers is simply a sleight of hand that has you convinced there is some inherent difference instead of paying attention to the man behind the curtain.    

 

This is your worst post yet. The point at hand here is that no money that is given to “Lakewood Church” can end up in ANY SuperPac, nor can Osteen raise money for his SuperPac at Lakewood Services. And any money that Osteen pays himself from Lakewood Church funds gets taxed. And there is a huge difference in passing the plate for a tithe than trying to hustle for political donations. 

Like I said, you appear to be confusing “religious people and the political associations they might form” with “churches.” Or mosques, synagogues, or whatever. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

It was 956WW that made a comment about religion staying out of politics when it is clear and there are numerous examples of religion getting involved.   Sometimes even on the correct (decent) side (civil rights).  

I suppose we are just at a fork here.  I see taxation of religious institutions as their contribution to society 'skin in the game' (as tahoe used to put it).  And while I would prefer that religion stay out of of politics and government stay out of religion I just do not see that as ever happening (religion staying out).  That religious organizations were lobbying and receiving bailouts from the government demonstrates how clearly they are embedded in politics without the need for superpacs that 956WW was threatening.   

I am not asking you to defend his position mind you.  I am just disagreeing to the idea that our current system is not the closest to your defined ideal relationship, but rather and example of religious institutions having a foothold in government while socializing their existence to non-members which is the worst of outcomes.  I pay for it, then pay some more.   All across our nation people use fiat money which includes "in God we trust" and children have to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance or mumble through a portion as our religion stays out of politics and education.    Here is the thing, I am not even asking that they change, just pay their own way for once.  Maybe let God provide, instead of me. 

Catholics get bailout   

 

 

 

Your example of the Catholic bailout inadvertently proves my point, even if the decision was bullshit. The LA Archdiocese spent 20k to lobby on a legislative issue. That’s well within the under five percent “insubstantial” limit and well within lobbying on legislation not for candidates.

You do know, right, that churches are restricted to an even lower level of lobbying funding than other non-profits (who have a completely different formula) precisely because of the religious freedom exemption? You also know, right, that for profit organizations can spend as much as they want on lobbying, and spent way more lobbying on this issue than any church did? 

[Captainant 27671]

17 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Your example of the Catholic bailout inadvertently proves my point, even if the decision was bullshit. The LA Archdiocese spent 20k to lobby on a legislative issue. That’s well within the under five percent “insubstantial” limit and well within lobbying on legislation not for candidates.

You do know, right, that churches are restricted to an even lower level of lobbying funding than other non-profits (who have a completely different formula) precisely because of the religious freedom exemption? You also know, right, that for profit organizations can spend as much as they want on lobbying, and spent way more lobbying on this issue than any church did? 

Here's a crazy fucking idea: get rid of bribery - i mean - lobbying. The church should be spending their tithe money on their community and place of worship. Not on influencing public fucking policy and the flow of taxpayer money. 

And it's heinous that speech is measured in dollars spent, and not in individuals participating in that speech

[956 Worldwide 34715]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Here's a crazy fucking idea: get rid of bribery - i mean - lobbying. The church should be spending their tithe money on their community and place of worship. Not on influencing public fucking policy and the flow of taxpayer money. 

And it's heinous that speech is measured in dollars spent, and not in individuals participating in that speech

I agree with you on both counts, the American lobbying system is grotesque as is our campaign finance system. 

My broader point is that if you really want churches out of politics, taxing them is the worst way to go about it and it will make it worse. 

[Blotto 23516]

https://denvergazette.com/wex/irs-denies-tax-exempt-status-to-christian-nonprofit-group-because-the-bible-s-teachings-are/article_d70dde0b-3d2d-5fe8-acab-072f95a6c261.html

Quote

The Internal Revenue Service denied a Christian nonprofit group tax-exempt status because "the Bible's teachings are typically affiliated with the Republican Party and candidates."

"Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations," read a letter from IRS Exempt Organizations Director Stephen Martin to Christians Engaged, a nonprofit group seeking tax-exempt status. "The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican Party] and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption under IRC Section 501(c)(3)."

Christians Engaged, which bills itself as educational, Christian, and nonpartisan, says its goal is to "awaken, motivate, and empower ordinary believers in Jesus Christ to: pray for our nation and our elected officials regularly, vote in every election to impact our culture, and engage our hearts in some forms of political education or activism for the furtherance of our nation."

 

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

That must make the Republicans the party of cannibalism.

Leviticus 26:29
You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

2 Kings 6:29
So we boiled my son and ate him; and I said to her on the next day, “Give your son, that we may eat him;” but she has hidden her son.

Ezekiel 5:10
Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

So much fun in the Bible.

[NWBuck 8568]

29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That must make the Republicans the party of cannibalism.

Leviticus 26:29
You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

2 Kings 6:29
So we boiled my son and ate him; and I said to her on the next day, “Give your son, that we may eat him;” but she has hidden her son.

Ezekiel 5:10
Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.

Happy Father's Day to you, from the God who asked Abraham to sacrifice his own kid then did the same His own damn Self.

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

13 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Happy Father's Day to you, from the God who asked Abraham to sacrifice his own kid then did the same His own damn Self.

But it wasn’t his own son, it was actually him the whole time, who was infinite and all-knowing, so he couldn’t die. But it was a sacrifice to save us from the imperfection of his own creation. It all makes perfect sense.

Only begotten son of God? Joseph was like the sorriest cuck ever. Father’s Day must sort of suck for him. 

[TwiceHorn 31475]

6 hours ago, Blotto said:

https://denvergazette.com/wex/irs-denies-tax-exempt-status-to-christian-nonprofit-group-because-the-bible-s-teachings-are/article_d70dde0b-3d2d-5fe8-acab-072f95a6c261.html

 

That article smells like bullshit to me.  Here's the actual letter. https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Christians-Engaged-IRS-Determination-Letter_Redacted.pdf

Bottom line, it's a republitard advocacy group masquerading as a Christian one.  They can still qualify for tax-exempt status under a different section, though.

[Biff Tannen 45688]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Ezekiel 5:10
Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.

That is metal as fuck. 

[NWBuck 8568]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Only begotten son of God? Joseph was like the sorriest cuck ever. Father’s Day must sort of suck for him. 

Why do you think he bailed? 

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But it wasn’t his own son, it was actually him the whole time, who was infinite and all-knowing, so he couldn’t die. But it was a sacrifice to save us from the imperfection of his own creation. It all makes perfect sense.

Only begotten son of God? Joseph was like the sorriest cuck ever. Father’s Day must sort of suck for him. 

Did Jesus know when the was the end of days was? Unless he did, they were different beings.

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

1 hour ago, NWBuck said:

Why do you think he bailed? 

Because he never balled. 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

 

[Guest Lobo]

15 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Because he never balled. 

But he bailed out?