Redstate

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Call me stupid but I don't see anything in there that says the Government can tell you that you can or can't say certain things or they are allowed to tax you more.

Maybe I'm ignorant but I don't think it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; unless those filthy Christians say something the Congress doesn't like! or abridging the freedom of speech unless those religious fanatics stay out of politics and give up their right to advocate for a candidate or issue or Congress can tax them!

It's a cute game being played but just like Kelo and CFR and the most recent outrages by the Supreme Court, the idea that the Government or Chuck Grassly can tell a church what they are allowed to say or face the Tax Man runs contrary to everything the founders said about the limits on the power of Government to tell it's citizens what they are allowed to say, or how they are allowed to exorcise their God given rights to freedom of religion and religion of speech.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Ace

No one is suggesting that these churches pay more taxes because of what they preach, you're making stuff up once again. But you do like to play the poor poor pitiful religious folks being picked on by the secular state game. This is about Cesar's rules of paying taxes and the tax exempt status of religious organizations.

What Grassley is up to, as posted above is probably a fishing expedition based on these churches paying their clergy very high salaries, spending money lavishly on the clergy and allowing members of the congregations to take tax write-offs for their tithes.

If these churches want to have the benefit of tax free status, then they get to follow some rules. Mostly to do with fiduciary accountability, but there are also restrictions on churches being advocates from the pulpit for ether Liberal or Conservative politicians. Matter of fact, a church out here in LA got poked a bit a few years ago for using the pulpit to bash Bush and promote Kerry I think it was. You won't support that now would you.

Churches need to follow the rules that Congress sets forth for preserving their tax exempt status, or decide they really aren't religious organizations and are instead businesses and start paying their fair share to Cesar.

Pretty simple, and not the spin you are selling once again.

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

What Grassley is up to, as posted above is probably a fishing expedition based on these churches paying their clergy very high salaries, spending money lavishly on the clergy and allowing members of the congregations to take tax write-offs for their tithes.

First off, I don't support these pastors doctrines and I believe them to be charlatans...but at the same time, I don't think it's the proper role of government to tell them what they can say whether they have official censors reading sermons and blocking out what they don't like, or using the IRS to intimidate and threaten them. It's bad precedent and it's gone on long enough. This policy wasn't widely pursued using the IRS until Clinton started using it in the 90s to silence his opposition from Conservative pastors. I would add that it's always been applied largely against Conservative churches while Liberal Churches are given a pass with a few exceptions.

Secondly, I don't think Grassley should be in the business of telling a pastor what he is allowed to earn any more than John McCain should be allowed to dictate what CEOs are allowed to earn...ditto Grassley telling a congregation what they are allowed to pay their pastor, anymore than McCain should be allowed to tell shareholders what they should be allowed to pay a CEO...It's socialist Nanny State clap trap no matter how you slice it or who is wielding the club! (I would add that it particularly galls me that the people I name here are attrempting and threatening to do exactly what I said they want to do respectively and they are both Republicans)!

Matter of fact, a church out here in LA got poked a bit a few years ago for using the pulpit to bash Bush and promote Kerry I think it was. You won't support that now would you.

This might surprise you Steve...but I oppose the government telling any church or tax exempt organization what it can say...period...I don't care who's ox is being gored so don't accuse me of inconsistency...

Churches have always received tax exempt status beginning in 1913 when the Amendment allowing Congress to levy taxes was being debated. One of the arguements against the income tax was that it would affect the Churches First Amendment ability to practice their rights to worship freely. The State should not be allowed to tell anyone what to say no matter what their political persuasion or point of view.

If there's any inconsistency to be seen here it's coming from the anti church community who on the one hand say there is an absolute separation of Church and State to the point where we need anti church Nazis like Barry Lihnde continuously flying around the country bringing lawsuits with his ACLU brownshirts any time the name of Jesus Christ is uttered outside of Church doors while at the same time demanding the tax exempt status of church's be revoked if it offends their left of center sensibilities! either the Curch and the State are absolutely separate or they're not...you can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest!

Churches need to follow the rules that Congress sets forth for preserving their tax exempt status, or decide they really aren't religious organizations and are instead businesses and start paying their fair share to Cesar.

First off...Churches aren't businesses, they're charitable institutions...Secondly...I oppose income taxes on businesses as well since businesses don't pay taxes, shareholders and customers do. So what's your point? Am I to assume that you favor the business income tax? and what exactly is "Their fair share"? That phrase has an eerily familiar ring to it...I wonder where I've heard it before?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Ace

I've got a favorite Video Poker bar at a hotel in Vegas, can I assert that video poker is my religion? How about the bar tender is my pastor and the money I put in the poker machine are my tithes? I'd like to take a tax credit for my trips out to Vegas to worship at the altar of video poker, make offerings to the poker machine and tips to my bartender/pastor. That OK by you?

Who's to say what is or is not a religion and gets a tax exemption...it's all first amendment to according to you. I'd be just exercising my First amendment to worship as I see fit after all according to you.

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

why not...I suppose you think the government should be able to determine what constitutes a legitimate church next right?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Churches in the United States of America complete withe a licensing agency that will determine who gets to be a church or not! Maybe we can have a Czar of Doctrine who will rule on those doctrines approved to be preached by the Federal Government in order to obtain a license?

Sounds like the kind of America where I'd want to live...(sarc)

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

because it would just be you...and you are obviously patronizing a business...but if you want to have a church of SteveLA, if you can get your cult together...then more power to you...I'd rather have you declare yourself a church and get around the tax laws than I would having the State telling me whether I and my doctrines are federally approved and dictating what I'm allowed to say from the pulpit or telling me what I'm allowed to earn...there are so many slippery slopes there than can be imagined!

We're already at the top of the slope...all it will take is a good push and we can shred what's left of the Constitution!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan`

IMHO...Any time the State uses it's powers to tax, regulate or punish any church, or other organization for what they say I believe we have a first Amendment issue...The government should not be in the business of determining what speech is allowed on any subject at any time for any purpose.

I opposed McCain's pet legislation on the same grounds. CFR is an absolute abridgment to the people's right speech, and assembly as well is the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances....I don't give a damn what Ginsburg, Bryer, Kennedy, Souter, or Steven say!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

I haven't seen anything you've written that says that these ministries are being punished on the basis of what they are preaching. Calling oneself a church does not give you a constitutional exemption from examination of your practices related to compliance with Caesar's tax laws.

If some churches don't police their ranks (I Timothy 6:5), then one should not be surprised that the State will decide to step in. And if they do so, they are acting as God's agents (Romans 13:3-4).

Again, as I said above, I object to what Grassley is doing, but not on First Amendment grounds - at least not yet.

And Rightly So!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

You keep acting like the First Amendment provides churches a blanket immunity from any kind of investigation by the state. Not so. Tax fraud is not a constitutionally protected church activity under the 1st Amendment, and the government has a right to investigate whether such is taking place.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself, though, so you'll have to look back at my earlier comments for the rest of my argument

And Rightly So!

what can be said, who can join, what constitutes a lawful assembly of individuals with a common purpose it abridges the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment.

and again...if there is an absolute wall of separation between Church and State...shouldn't that wall bar participation and interference on with the other equally? It seems to me that if Christian speech must be censored from the public square to maintain this absolute separation then the Government has no place or power to tax the church given this self same absolute separation.

Of course these ridiculous arguments will never be followed to the logical conclusions I suggest...I simply point them out to put the naked hypocrisy of those on the other side this arguement on display for all to see!

And another thing...is Grassley investigating the salaries of other tax exempt organizations like the American Red Cross, the American Lung Association, the United Way etc?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Ugh.

United Way.

*spit*

NEVER trust a charity with overhead that rivals the government, whos members are driven around in limos.

From time to time I see the United Way limo here in OKC.

Disgusting.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I thought you were arguing below for an "absolute wall" but I guess from your first paragraphs here, you weren't.

As for your last sentence about Grassley's actions towards other major non-profits like the Red Cross - now you're getting into the domain of questions that I would ask too, because my argument has been over the question as to whether Grassley is abusing his legislative position.

Especially, since he has never indicated ground for believing that violations of the law are taking place, it starts to look like Grassley is fishing for data from which he can then try to manufacture evidence of wrongdoing - which is not the purview of Congress but rather of Executive agencies such as the Justice Department or the IRS, with all the legal protections in place (e.g. 4th and 5th Amendments) for those being accused, which Congressional hearings do not afford.

And Rightly So!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Bottom line is this...I don't believe any organization's tax exempt status should open them up for censorship of views or behavior especially if the tax exemption is religious in nature due to the First Amendments four pillared protections of speech, worship assembly and petition.

so I think we still have a fundamental disagreement there that we'll have to agree to disagree on...

But I think we agree where the questions of salaries and other considerations apply to not only churches but other tax exempt organizations such as the American Red Cross, The United Way etc.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

I'm referring to the current approach of the government to use it's power to tax in order to coerce behavior in one direction or the other....Speech is only a part of it....regulating what a congregation can pay a pastor is another....

Is I told steve above...my objection to the tactic of using tax law against churches come from many direction but the greatest argument against this sort of thing is that the very people who are on the crusade to tell churches what they are allowed to say and do are the very ones who claim there is a "Separation of Church and State" written into the First Amendment that is so absolute that any speach or display pertaining to Christianity must be stomped out of the public square yet these same pepole are pushing to have the Federal Government use it's power to tax interfere in all aspects of a church organization!

So, My question is this...is there an absolute wall of separation between church and state...or does the saparation only run one way?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

There is no "absolute" wall of separation between the church and the state.

You're touching on the same issues that entail "faith-based" government-funded programs. Once you choose to accept money from the government or preferential tax benefits, you also choose to accept the government constraints on that status. This applies to other non-profit organizations besides churches. There is no 1st Amendment right to government funding or tax preferences.

Part of the constraint is allowance of government scrutiny of your financial strutures and transactions. You don't want scrutiny; you don't accept the benefit.

Now it is certainly most legitimate to debate over the nature of that scrutiny; I'm not advocating unlimited rights - but those protections are rooted in Constitutional principles enshrined elsewhere: in the 4th and 5th Amendements, among others, and also in the Separation of Powers.

Either way, when taxpayer money is involved, the state has a stewardship responsiblity for the money

And Rightly So!

I didn't and don't agree with Bush's faith based initiatives for this very reason...You have a point there.

As to the argument that churches receive special benefits and accept regulation as a result...how is a non profit organization that doesn't earn a profit therefore doesn't pay taxes receiving a special tax treatment or benefit?

I just don't like the idea that the government can tell anyone what to say or not and what they can pay officers of that organization. I'm frankly stunned that so many in this country have accepted that argument!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan