The Bobcat Nation

Now this is interesting...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... mailedlink

Grizlaw wrote:Now this is interesting...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... mailedlink

and hopefully next this will happen to jessie jackson

Hell's Bells wrote:and hopefully next this will happen to jessie jackson

Perhaps...

But what if we place the shoe on the other foot? Clergy members have been speaking out against abortion and gay marriage for years; should their tax exempt status be revoked as well? Or is it only when churches speak out against Republican ideals that they are to be threatened like this?

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:and hopefully next this will happen to jessie jackson

Perhaps...

But what if we place the shoe on the other foot? Clergy members have been speaking out against abortion and gay marriage for years; should their tax exempt status be revoked as well? Or is it only when churches speak out against Republican ideals that they are to be threatened like this?

placing said items like anti war - abortion or anti gay marrage, or any item that can be placed within the confines and words of the bible i have no problem with. However endorsing political candidates is not the role of the church *see jackson, jessie*

and i have no idea if this is correct or not but overall bush is not in controll of the I.R.S.

Hell's Bells wrote:and i have no idea if this is correct or not but overall bush is not in controll of the I.R.S.

No offense; this is just a piece of constructive criticism: in the future when you're engaged in a any type of debate, whenever you are inclined to say anything that begins with "I have no idea if this is correct or not, but..." you should probably just not say whatever it is that is to follow, instead sticking to points about which you do have some idea as to whether or not they are correct. As a general proposition, I think you'll find that to be a much more persuasive debating style.

Yes, the IRS is part of the executive branch of the government, and accordingly, the President is, to a greater or lesser extent, in control of it. More specifically, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the head of the IRS, and he is appointed by the President. Granted, he does not run the agency's day-to-day operations, but he is in control of it to the same extent he is in control of any other executive branch agency.

--GL

EDIT: And as a sidenote: who said anything about Bush? I just find the issue interesting; it seems to me that a lot of stances taken by churches are arguably political; why is it only this particular stance that has drawn IRS scrutiny?

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:and i have no idea if this is correct or not but overall bush is not in controll of the I.R.S.

No offense; this is just a piece of constructive criticism: in the future when you're engaged in a any type of debate, whenever you are inclined to say anything that begins with "I have no idea if this is correct or not, but..." you should probably just not say whatever it is that is to follow, instead sticking to points about which you do have some idea as to whether or not they are correct. As a general proposition, I think you'll find that to be a much more persuasive debating style.

Yes, the IRS is part of the executive branch of the government, and accordingly, the President is, to a greater or lesser extent, in control of it. More specifically, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the head of the IRS, and he is appointed by the President. Granted, he does not run the agency's day-to-day operations, but he is in control of it to the same extent he is in control of any other executive branch agency.

--GL

EDIT: And as a sidenote: who said anything about Bush? I just find the issue interesting; it seems to me that a lot of stances taken by churches are arguably political; why is it only this particular stance that has drawn IRS scrutiny?

just trying to dissuade any at all internet rumor how president bush, between crack binges and helping the first lady sell drugs *it was in a kitty kelly trash book* told the irs to "censure" any churches that dont agree with them by pulling their tax exempt status

yes the irs is in the executive branch but think of it this way

the president has other worries, ex the war in iraq, getting money for hurricane katrina help and ext...do you think he would have the time to worry about censuring churches? thought so.

like i said tax exempt *non profit* organizations cannot be political. if they are then they are not following the rules of 501 c3 non profit status that they got through the i.r.s

i wonder if this was the only violation by this church...

Hell's Bells wrote:like i said tax exempt *non profit* organizations cannot be political. if they are then they are not following the rules of 501 c3 non profit status that they got through the i.r.s

i wonder if this was the only violation by this church...

Ugh...you're missing the whole point though, HB. Let me try again...

Why is speaking about the war a political issue, and speaking about abortion is not?

It is no secret that the pro-life movement favored Bush over Kerry in the last election (as did the anti-gay marriage movement). In the weeks leading up to the election, countless clergy members gave sermons and public statements addressing the abortion issue (including the priest at my church). Why is nobody arguing that those churches should lose their exempt status; isn't what they did precisely the same thing? There are several Catholic cardinals on record as saying that a Catholic politician who is pro-choice should not receive communion, and at least one (the guy in Colorado) is on record as saying that the same is true of any citizen who votes for a pro-choice candidate. Why is nobody talking about revoking these churches' exempt status?

That's my question. Please don't respond by simply citing section 501(c)(3) and explaining that churches cannot be political; I am well aware of those requirements. My question is, what is different about this situation?

--GL

P.S. About Bush -- I would never suggest that he personally had anything to do with this IRS decision, although I might argue that it came about because of the natural political persuasion of the people he has appointed to run the IRS. I do, however, think it is very telling that as soon as someone raises an issue like this (without any suggestion that Bush has done anything wrong), Bush supporters feel the need to automatically jump to their feet and proclaim that Bush had nothing to do with it. Getting a little jumpy are we?

Why is speaking about the war a political issue, and speaking about abortion is not?

Hell's Bells wrote: placing said items like anti war - abortion or anti gay marrage, or any item that can be placed within the confines and words of the bible i have no problem with. However endorsing political candidates is not the role of the church *see jackson, jessie*

I'm having a hard time following you on this one Grizlaw, the churches you talked about are making statements about someone not endorsing that person opponent.

Simple solution: Since churches are places of business run by political hustlers who are very good at influencing people to maximize profit and power they should be taxed!

"Thou shalt not covet thy nieghbor's goods"

There goes the economy!


"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"

There goes my fantasies!

It only says thy Neighbors wife, it says nothing about the lady down the block.

Ponycat wrote:I'm having a hard time following you on this one Grizlaw, the churches you talked about are making statements about someone not endorsing that person opponent.

It just seems to me to be a pretty fine line. Knowing that Kerry is a pro-choice candidate, I don't see how a cardinal telling his congregation that it is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate can be viewed as not endorsing Bush (or, at least, as telling parisioners not to vote for Kerry).

It's hard to know what churches should and should not be allowed to do, because their very essence requires that they be allowed to preach about their ideology. However, if the IRS wants to argue that making a speech to the effect that "Jesus would not have supported the war in Iraq" right before the election is participation in the political process, I don't see how a cardinal telling Catholics that they cannot receive communion if they vote for a pro-choice candidate is any different.

Gottcha, I guess I should have read the original article.

Ponycat wrote:It only says thy Neighbors wife, it says nothing about the lady down the block.

Or in the office two doors down.

Based on what is on the article I don't understand the IRS ruling, and if that is all there is to the ruling I think it sets a dangerous precedent. Grizlaw you are the tax expert, don't you think there has to be more to this, or has the agency run amok?

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"

There goes my fantasies!

It only says thy Neighbors wife, it says nothing about the lady down the block.

Or in the office two doors down.

okay, and I get blasted for looking at butts during Bobcat FB games rather than watching the field action

you men are just as bad as I am

besides, I'd rather covet the christmas tree salesman in missoula

completely off subject, but who needs to control the hormones now

The minister at the church I grew up in had the opinion that churches should not be tax-exempt. He felt that the positives outweighed the negatives. It's been a long time, so I can't be confident that I remember his arguments well, but I'll take a stab at the arguments, and I'm sure the rest of you can shoot them down or add to the list.

Advantages of taxing churches:
Remove a big incentive for cults (i.e. L. Ron Hubberd) and organizations that use church status to bypass gov't scrutiny and regulations.
No issues such as the OP as to where do you draw the line between ideology and politics (more freedom to operate the church as desired in some ways).

Disadvantages:
Money - If the donations are not tax deductible it may be harder to get donations, at the same time the church needs more money to maintain the post tax income.
Tax money may be used for things the church is opposed to.

In general, I think some of the added freedoms given to churches will be offset by the loss of other freedoms if churches are dealt with like any other entity, but it's an interesting thought. I really don't think it would work - politically or economically.

grizbeer wrote:Based on what is on the article I don't understand the IRS ruling, and if that is all there is to the ruling I think it sets a dangerous precedent. Grizlaw you are the tax expert, don't you think there has to be more to this, or has the agency run amok?

Well, I might not quite go as far as to say it is "running amok," but if this sort of thing becomes a trend, then it is somewhat alarming.

To me, the bottom line is that the IRS has to enforce its rules in an even-handed manner (as any regulatory agency should). The ability to conduct audits of nonprofit or religious organizations gives it a power which potentially could be abused in a way that has the effect of silencing groups whose ideals do not agree with the administration, and it would be troubling if the Service were to begin to make a habit of using its powers in this way. In other words, I won't judge the IRS based on one incident, but it is enough to raise my eyebrows...

Of course, the Service has not actually revoked this church's status yet; it has merely begun an audit, so there's still time for cooler heads to prevail.

Every president since, I'd say, Eisenhower has used the IRS to go after their political opponents.

In my period of no internet access, I was wondering if HB was gleeful over this issue, and if GL was pointing out to him the larger picture implications, and if HB was fighting against the logic.

I was so right....

Anyway, I found this particularly interesting. If this church loses its IRS exempt status, this is VERY bad news for every church, starting with the Catholic church (where I have heard many, many strongly worded suggestions that abortion is a sin and that we should vote accordingly ... Lord hear our prayer).

In fact, if I was secretly plotting against religion as an instituition, I would pursue action against a liberal church for this very scenario, get their status revoked, and establish the precedent. After that, it's open season on all churches who make strong suggestions on political issues, including abortion, and it's shooting ducks in a barrel.

Consistency is a bitch, and that is a very good reason to look at the big picture on issues as opposed to just supporting political ideas that one personally agrees with.

If Bush or any of his people did summon this action, they are morons ... or are themselves secretly plotting against the right wing. They certainly do control the IRS, but I personally can't believe that they are directing this particular action ... unless they are morons.