Quantcast

Comments about ‘IRS sued to tighten enforcement of church electioneering’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 15 2012 12:35 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
?
SLC, UT

I'm curious to know, does the Freedom from Religion Foundation pay taxes? If not, then why the complaint? If they succeed in causing churches to pay taxes, then is the Freedom from Religion Foundation also prepared to pay taxes? Why should churches be silenced from the public square, while those against religion should be allowed to continue to speak out against religion?

But I agree with Utes Fan. If churches must be taxed, then they then will have all the more right to represent themselves within the realm of politics over topics they are concerned about.

Those against religion don't have to practice any religion. Many might encourage you to participate, but no one is forcing you. So, why prevent others from worshiping if they choose to worship? But it seems those against religion won't be happy until no one is able to worship as those who choose to worship desire to worship.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@RanchHand

"Religion and politics do not mix. Tax churches and ta-da, problem solved."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You notice it is Congress, the law makers that the first amendment puts the restrictions on but there is no restriction of religion to give its input on government policy or even endorsing a politician. Threatening to take away a tax exempt status from a religious body is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So where is this separation of Church and State that some people claim exists in the constitution?

Mendel
Iowa City, IA

"the power to tax is the power to destroy."
John Marshall, chief justice

If the government can tax religion...

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

1. As I understand it there is no law, passed by congress, prohibiting churches from endorsing candidates. LBJ signed an executive order to that effect and the IRS has been tasked to enforce it. Unconstitutional in my book.

2. Labor Unions have forced membership and forcibly extract dues, usually by payroll deduction. People join and donate to churches voluntarily.

3. Labor Unions newsletters are usually overtly political. Church publications almost never are.

4. Labor Unions effectively donate to only one political party. I am a conservative Republican. I am forced to join a labor union or my union will demand that my employer fire me. My union dues are used almost excursively to finance political causes that I oppose.

Why can a labor union (a tax exempt corporation) steel my money and use it to promote things that I oppose and my church that I voluntarily join and donate to cannot use my money for political causes that I support?

Labor Unions are effectively tax collectors for the Democrat Party.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Rock. It goes further than that.

Any corporation can now donate an unlimited amount of money to a political pac. So, every stockholder is "forced" to go along with the political leanings of the company management.

I am opposed to all money in politics. Corporate, union, lobby? Are you against all money or just union money?

Ready to fight against the Citizens United Ruling?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Not allowing non-profits to have tax exempt status if they engage in political speech was a policy promoted, implemented and used by LBJ - because he wanted to silence non-profits that were criticizing him

Its all about censorship

The Freedom From Religion foundation is a close relative of the Freedom From Jews foundation - they are the problem

Zona Zone
Mesa, AZ

@ Maudine. Regulating what can be said from the pulpit violates three clauses of the First Amendment: Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise.

frugalfly
PULLMAN, WA

The founders stated that Liberty and Freedom (democratic-republic) was a political system only fit for the moral AND religious individual and not for anyone else because they knew all other individuals would eventually destroy themselves or the country with the misuse of that Liberty and Freedom. The key is AND in the statement above. Doesn't cut it to be religious and not moral or moral and not religious. It sets a high bar for the individual member of society to be the very best that they can be.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@frugalfly

I have never found that those who claim to be religious show any higher sense of morality or ethics than those who are not religious; on the other hand I have detected a significant amount of condescension among those who consider themselves superior because of their religious views. What matters is that individuals in a society (and especially the leaders of that society) be ethical, honest, and worthy of trust. These attributes have been considered by many to be the result of a religious outlook, but I think these claims are overblown. There are just as high a fraction of scoundrels among the religious as among those who lack religion, and just as high a fraction of commendable individuals among the irreligious as among those who are religious. Personally, I don't care how religious or irreligious a person may be. What matters is how he/she conducts himself and interacts with his/her fellow humans. The rest is window-dressing.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments