Trump to sign E/O lifting 501-c (3) tax restrictions on churches

[Anti Federalist]

Trump to sign order lifting ban on political activity by churches

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion-idUSKBN17Z2O2?il=0

By Steve Holland | WASHINGTON

President Donald Trump is expected to take executive action on Thursday to effectively lift a ban on political activity by churches and other tax-exempt institutions, a senior White House official said on Wednesday.

Trump will mark the National Day of Prayer by issuing guidance to federal agencies like the Treasury Department on how to interpret a law that says churches and religious organizations risk losing their tax-exempt status if they participate in political campaigns.

The order is expected to give the Treasury Department guidance on how strictly to enforce the 1954 law known as the Johnson Amendment, the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as details of the action were still being worked out.

Trump frequently complained about the amendment during his campaign for the presidency, bolstering his support among religious conservatives who contend it violates free speech and religious freedom rights.

Changing the law altogether would require action in the Republican-led U.S. Congress.

Civil liberties and gay rights groups fear Trump's order could include provisions to allow government agencies and businesses to deny services to gay people in the name of religious freedom. The groups have argued that such a move would be unconstitutional.

It was not clear on Wednesday whether the order would include that type of measure, the official said.

[TheCount]

The law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501


(3)Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

...

(h)Expenditures by public charities to influence legislation

(1)General ruleIn the case of an organization to which this subsection applies, exemption from taxation under subsection (a) shall be denied because a substantial part of the activities of such organization consists of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, but only if such organization normally—

(A)makes lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year, or

(B)makes grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year.


(2)DefinitionsFor purposes of this subsection—
(A)Lobbying expendituresThe term “lobbying expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d)).


(B)Lobbying ceiling amountThe lobbying ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the lobbying nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.


(C)Grass roots expendituresThe term “grass roots expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d) without regard to paragraph (1)(B) thereof).


(D)Grass roots ceiling amountThe grass roots ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the grass roots nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.


It looks like right now 503(c) organizations are allowed to spend 30% of their total charity spending doing lobbying and grass roots work. If they spend more than that then they risk losing their non-profit status.

I don't see how an EO can change the interpretation of this but I guess we'll see. So much for all that complaining about executive action and the President just writing law from his desk, I guess...

[GunnyFreedom]

Finally some friggin good news, even if his methodology is absurdly broken.

[tod evans]

Civil liberties and gay rights groups fear Trump's order could include provisions to allow government agencies and businesses to deny services to gay people in the name of religious freedom.

Two completely different entities.

Shut down "government agencies" and GTFO of business matters instead of trying to yoke them together...

[Zippyjuan]

Changing enforcement- not the law:


Changing the law altogether would require action in the Republican-led U.S. Congress.

Most of his EO's have been more symbolic in nature rather than changing actual laws and designed to appeal to his base.

[donnay]

It goes against the 1st Amendment. The IRS should be abolished.

[AuH20]

Finally some friggin good news, even if his methodology is absurdly broken.

He doesn't have a methodology.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't see how an EO can change the interpretation of this but I guess we'll see. So much for all that complaining about executive action and the President just writing law from his desk, I guess...[/FONT][/COLOR]

Trust me, I am in full agreement with Gunny, the methodology is utterly broken.

However, I am in favor of anything that restores even the slightest bit of freedom to people.

[Anti Federalist]

He doesn't have a methodology.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNsltQXTVU

[Matt Collins]

It looks like right now 503(c) organizations are allowed to spend 30% of their total charity spending doing lobbying and grass roots work. If they spend more than that then they risk losing their non-profit status.Except that no non-profit with more than 3 brain cells would ever do that because it allows all of their books to be open to the IRS and subjects them to endless audits.

[r3volution 3.0]

Good in principle, probably of no help to us in practice (...most of the churches today aren't exactly bastions of liberty).

[timosman]

Good in principle, probably of no help to us in practice (...most of the churches today aren't exactly bastions of liberty).

Your pastor is probably an FBI informant.:cool:

[eleganz]

Where is the line between church and state drawn?

[Brian4Liberty]

Good in principle, probably of no help to us in practice (...most of the churches today aren't exactly bastions of liberty).

The Pope says that your liberty is a bad thing...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509120-quot-Aggressive-individualism-quot-is-the-latest-evil&p=6461312&viewfull=1#post6461312

[Brian4Liberty]

There should be no taxes. That being said, special exemptions reak of cronyism and fraud.

[timosman]

There should be no taxes. That being said, special exemptions reak of cronyism and fraud.

This is a blasphemy!:cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

The Pope says that your liberty is a bad thing...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509120-quot-Aggressive-individualism-quot-is-the-latest-evil&p=6461312&viewfull=1#post6461312

Pope's a commie

[jonhowe]

Was this enforced? I enjoy watching the Jim Bakker show for a good laugh these days, and his PRIMARY message throughout 2016 was "VOTE TRUMP!" The show is put forward as (and is, as far as I can tell) a church service being broadcast on TV, so I was mighty confused as to how that was allowed.

(Not that I think speech should be limited, even for Jim Bakker; I'm just wondering this change will do much, if it wasnt enforced previously.)

[donnay]

Was this enforced? I enjoy watching the Jim Bakker show for a good laugh these days, and his PRIMARY message throughout 2016 was "VOTE TRUMP!" The show is put forward as (and is, as far as I can tell) a church service being broadcast on TV, so I was mighty confused as to how that was allowed.

(Not that I think speech should be limited, even for Jim Bakker; I'm just wondering this change will do much, if it wasnt enforced previously.)

It was selectively enforced. The powers-that-be were concerned because they know the history about the Black Robed Regiment and did not want that happen again.

So they made sure to coerce the men in cloth by getting them to be snitches with the Clergy Response Teams.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEzO0emZsk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgzKiGc58Mk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8muOZ0vZbKw

26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government
https://www.prisonplanet.com/26000-pastors-for-martial-law-continuity-of-government.html

Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted
https://www.prisonplanet.com/ban-on-political-endorsements-by-pastors-targeted.html


New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.
https://www.prisonplanet.com/new-legislation-authorizes-fema-camps-in-us.html

FEMA sources confirm coming martial law
https://www.prisonplanet.com/fema-sources-confirm-coming-martial-law.html

[jonhowe]

It was selectively enforced. The powers-that-be were concerned because they know the history about the Black Robed Regiment and did not want that happen again.

So they made sure to coerce the men in cloth by getting them to be snitches with the Clergy Response Teams.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEzO0emZsk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgzKiGc58Mk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8muOZ0vZbKw

26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government
https://www.prisonplanet.com/26000-pastors-for-martial-law-continuity-of-government.html

Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted
https://www.prisonplanet.com/ban-on-political-endorsements-by-pastors-targeted.html


New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.
https://www.prisonplanet.com/new-legislation-authorizes-fema-camps-in-us.html

FEMA sources confirm coming martial law
https://www.prisonplanet.com/fema-sources-confirm-coming-martial-law.html

Why wouldnt it be enforced against the widely known guy with a nationwide TV show, then? I mean, he was out and out endorsing Trump and instructing people to the polls.

[donnay]

Why wouldnt it be enforced against the widely known guy with a nationwide TV show, then? I mean, he was out and out endorsing Trump and instructing people to the polls.

I cannot answer that. I know there are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there. You have to research it, and use discernment.

[Sonny Tufts]

It looks like right now 503(c) organizations are allowed to spend 30% of their total charity spending doing lobbying and grass roots work. If they spend more than that then they risk losing their non-profit status.

Except that this provision doesn't apply to churches -- see §501(h)(5).


It goes against the 1st Amendment.

Churches don't have a constitutional right not to be taxed. Congress has decided, however, to grant them tax-exempt status and to grant tax deductions for contributions made to them but only if they don't use this subsidy to intervene in political campaigns. If a church wants to campaign for someone it is free to do so, but it can't do it with tax-free money. All other 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to the same restriction, which isn't affected by the lobbying exception in §501(h).

Taxing a publisher doesn't violate the Free Press Clause, and taxing a church doesn't violate the Free Exercise Clause.

[Anti Federalist]

Why wouldnt it be enforced against the widely known guy with a nationwide TV show, then? I mean, he was out and out endorsing Trump and instructing people to the polls.

More than likely because his TV show operation is not organized as a 501 - 3 (c) charity.

[Anti Federalist]

Pope's a commie

Yes, yes he is.

[GunnyFreedom]

Except that this provision doesn't apply to churches -- see §501(h)(5).



Churches don't have a constitutional right not to be taxed. Congress has decided, however, to grant them tax-exempt status and to grant tax deductions for contributions made to them but only if they don't use this subsidy to intervene in political campaigns. If a church wants to campaign for someone it is free to do so, but it can't do it with tax-free money. All other 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to the same restriction, which isn't affected by the lobbying exception in §501(h).

Taxing a publisher doesn't violate the Free Press Clause, and taxing a church doesn't violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Churches have been tax exempt in the US since the country was founded. The 501(c)3 provision was added in 1954. All 501(c)3 did was muzzle their speech in return for the ability to deduct contributions from income tax, thus making Church revenue de facto taxpayer funds, which is why they believed they had the authority to do it. Since 501(c) churches are literally funded by tax money, the government believes they have the authority to tell those churches how to conduct business.

I for one do not believe that donations to Church should be written off on income taxes to begin with. I am a passionate and fervent Christian, but the idea of funding a Church with taxpayer funds is evil from both perspectives. However what is far, far worse than the ability to write off those donations (which again, should not exist) is this idea that a Church should give up their 1st Amendment.

[William Tell]

More than likely because his TV show operation is not organized as a 501 - 3 (c) charity.

And also because Trump was an establishment candidate. No threat to the gravy train and overseas killing.

[jonhowe]

More than likely because his TV show operation is not organized as a 501 - 3 (c) charity.

I've been trying to look into this. I don't mean to derail the thread, but the show requests donations, and is careful to not say you are "buying" their books and products, but getting them in return for a donation. Perhaps this is just done as a guise to make people think it's a charity.

Jim Bakker just infuriates me; he's such a con artist. (That said, his tax conviction back in the day was bogus.)

[Madison320]

There should be no taxes. That being said, special exemptions reak of cronyism and fraud.

I agree. I don't like any sort of tax exemptions, progressive taxes, etc. If we have to suffer from govt, we should all suffer equally.

[Sonny Tufts]

As written, the Executive Order doesn't do away with anything insofar as the Johnson Amendment is concerned.


Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit. (qualifying disclaimers bolded)

As the National Review said, "The answer to the Johnson Amendment, however, is to either repeal the statute or overturn it in court. This order does neither. In fact, a lawyer will commit malpractice if he tells a pastor or director of a nonprofit that this order allows a church or nonprofit to use its resources to support or oppose a candidate. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/fPXdRhl.jpg

[PierzStyx]

Trust me, I am in full agreement with Gunny, the methodology is utterly broken.

However, I am in favor of anything that restores even the slightest bit of freedom to people.

Does it though?

If I can prevent you from drinking beer but I allow you to drink beer, are you really free or are you merely dependent on my whims?

I'm glad when the yoke has a nice velvet interior. But let us not confuse that for actual freedom.

[r3volution 3.0]

Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

good point

[heavenlyboy34]

The Pope heretical bishop of Rome says that your liberty is a bad thing...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509120-quot-Aggressive-individualism-quot-is-the-latest-evil&p=6461312&viewfull=1#post6461312

FIFY.

[Anti Federalist]

Does it though?

If I can prevent you from drinking beer but I allow you to drink beer, are you really free or are you merely dependent on my whims?

I'm glad when the yoke has a nice velvet interior. But let us not confuse that for actual freedom.

You are if you repeal the law that prohibited me from drinking beer.

[Anti Federalist]

Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

Which is why the anti federalists were right, and why we should not be ruled by fatwas and royal decrees from a President/King

[Anti Federalist]

And I got the IRS bass ackwards...fuck.

[Brian4Liberty]

FIFY.

How about an older label and we call him the anti-Christ?

[heavenlyboy34]

How about an older label and we call him the anti-Christ?

That's newer. The Protestants gave him that one. :)

[devil21]

When Trump sucks up news air time and conversation with these red meat EOs (and tweets) of dubious content and enforceability I always wonder what his other hand is doing...

[Origanalist]

As written, the Executive Order doesn't do away with anything insofar as the Johnson Amendment is concerned.



As the National Review said, "The answer to the Johnson Amendment, however, is to either repeal the statute or overturn it in court. This order does neither. In fact, a lawyer will commit malpractice if he tells a pastor or director of a nonprofit that this order allows a church or nonprofit to use its resources to support or oppose a candidate. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

860248269208858625

[PierzStyx]

You are if you repeal the law that prohibited me from drinking beer.

I disagree. As long as it is up to my to decide to pass a law or get rid of a law that tells you can drink or not, then you're not free. The law is merely the whim of the State. As long as those whims rule your life you aren't free, even if the whim is more benevolent for the time being. But as long as I can decide you can't drink anymore then you aren't free. You're just doing what I have allowed you to do.

[PierzStyx]

How about an older label and we call him the anti-Christ?

That would be Luther.

But large portions of Christianity were calling the Pope an apostate at least as far back as Arius and Nicaea.

[PierzStyx]

Which is why the anti federalists were right, and why we should not be ruled by fatwas and royal decrees from a President/King

A fatwa is a religious ruling issued by an imam based on their interpretation of Islamic law. It isn't a law. If you don't trust the imam you don't have to follow the fatwa.

[TheCount]

A fatwa is a religious ruling issued by an imam based on their interpretation of Islamic law. It isn't a law.That's extremely similar to a Trump executive order.

[Madison320]

I disagree. As long as it is up to my to decide to pass a law or get rid of a law that tells you can drink or not, then you're not free. The law is merely the whim of the State. As long as those whims rule your life you aren't free, even if the whim is more benevolent for the time being. But as long as I can decide you can't drink anymore then you aren't free. You're just doing what I have allowed you to do.

You sound like an anarchist.

[H. E. Panqui]

...treating people differently under tax law is a miserable idea...the people favored will fight like hell against any movement towards honest egalitarianism...maybe hospitals, 'poorhouses,' etc., deserve special treatment...but CERTAINLY not these gd ooga booga religious institutions....ugh...

...many religious republicrats, etc.assorted peckerheads, will foam about 'religious freedom' as they force me to pay for their stinking tax/income exemption$...

...from time magazine: The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 exempted nonprofits (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/why-do-we-have-charitable-tax-deduction-anyway) from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax-free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, or most (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/business/california-scrutinizes-property-tax-exemption-of-nonprofits.html), property tax and state income tax.

[timosman]

...treating people differently under tax law is a miserable idea...the people favored will fight like hell against any movement towards honest egalitarianism...maybe hospitals, 'poorhouses,' etc., deserve special treatment...but CERTAINLY not these gd ooga booga religious institutions....ugh...

...many religious republicrats, etc.assorted peckerheads, will foam about 'religious freedom' as they force me to pay for their stinking tax/income exemption$...

...from time magazine: The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 exempted nonprofits (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/why-do-we-have-charitable-tax-deduction-anyway) from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax-free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, or most (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/business/california-scrutinizes-property-tax-exemption-of-nonprofits.html), property tax and state income tax.

Why can't you incorporate yourself as a non-profit and ask your boss to hire you as a consultant?:rolleyes:

[Danke]

...many religious republicrats, etc.assorted peckerheads, will foam about 'religious freedom' as they force me to pay for their stinking tax/income exemption$...
.

how exactly are they forcing you to pay taxes?

do you blame chinamen in Beijing too for not paying taxes here?

[oyarde]

how exactly are they forcing you to pay taxes?

do you blame chinamen in Beijing too for not paying taxes here?

My chinamen only takes cash , so pretty sure he is light on taxes . Well done .

[PierzStyx]

You sound like an anarchist.

Or, you know, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

That was the entire basis of liberty and why government was supposed to be incredibly small and weak, because when we create political institutions we are risking our freedom in exchange for the theoretical benefits of working together. It is also why Locke argues people can rebel against their governments at will whenever they feel like their rights are being violated. Jefferson based the entire Declaration of Independence off this idea. And Jefferson and Madison based their arguments for nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. As long as what you can and cannot do is dictated to you by another, you are not free.

[PierzStyx]

That's extremely similar to a Trump executive order.

If by that you mean the courts keep slapping them down, sure. :)

[Madison320]

Or, you know, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

That was the entire basis of liberty and why government was supposed to be incredibly small and weak, because when we create political institutions we are risking our freedom in exchange for the theoretical benefits of working together. It is also why Locke argues people can rebel against their governments at will whenever they feel like their rights are being violated. Jefferson based the entire Declaration of Independence off this idea. And Jefferson and Madison based their arguments for nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. As long as what you can and cannot do is dictated to you by another, you are not free.

I think they still believed in laws and minimal government.

[helmuth_hubener]

I disagree. As long as it is up to my to decide to pass a law or get rid of a law that tells you can drink or not, then you're not free. The law is merely the whim of the State. As long as those whims rule your life you aren't free, even if the whim is more benevolent for the time being. But as long as I can decide you can't drink anymore then you aren't free. You're just doing what I have allowed you to do.

Oh, please. You are all the time "at the whims" of various people, namely: everybody. You are at the whim of your wife to not kill you. She could decide to at any moment, you know? Any time you two are together and you are defenseless, your continued life is merely the whim of your wife. At any time she might decide to pass a decree or get rid of a decree and that means you're not free. Right?

Your employer might decide at any moment to kidnap you -- lock the doors and not let you out. Your ferry operator may at any time choose to sink the boat. Your waiter may choose at any time to poison your food.

You must not be free.

For the rest of us not in La-La Land, whether we are free or not rests more upon whether our freedoms are actually being violated, not on whether they theoretically could be.

[PierzStyx]

I think they still believed in laws and minimal government.

Yes, laws and government constrained my the operation of natural law. All human law was supposedly constrained by the limits of Natural Law. As soon as any man-made law begins to violate the rights of man then they are justified in rebellion. This is because man-made law is not law but the whims of a tyrant. In fact Locke goes further than I an says that any time the government passes a law that violates your rights, and thus establishes absolute power over you, then the State has instantly placed itself in a condition of war against the people and can be completely replaced.

“Since men hope to preserve their property by establishing a government, they will not want that government to destroy this objective. When legislators (lawmakers) try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey the laws. When legislators try to gain or give someone else absolute power over lives, liberties, and property of the people, they abuse the power which the people had put into their hands. It is then the privilege of the people to establish a new legislature to provide for their safety and security. These principles also hold true for the executive who helps to make laws and carry them out.” -John Locke, Two Treatise of Government

That this sounds like anarchy to so many Americans just betrays a deep lack of study on the part of most Americans to study the philosophies of liberty. Too many mimic and ape Locke without actually reading him. And it only ends up justifying those in power. They don't really understand what "minimal government" truly means.

[PierzStyx]

Replies in bold.


Oh, please. You are all the time "at the whims" of various people, namely: everybody. You are at the whim of your wife to not kill you. She could decide to at any moment, you know? Any time you two are together and you are defenseless, your continued life is merely the whim of your wife. At any time she might decide to pass a decree or get rid of a decree and that means you're not free. Right?

Way to miss the point. Of course you are influenced by the actions of others. But my life isn't ruled by the whims of my wife. She cannot order me to do anything. And while she can certainly try to kill me, there is no assurance she would. Even if successful she would not rule me.


On the other hand, if someone else can determine your liberty or freedom, can command you to obey and compel you do so, then they rule you. Whether they choose to use that power in a way you like or not is irrelevant to the power they exercise over you. And that is what is being discussed, the extent to which the commands of others can dictate your liberty and obedience without your choice in the matter.

Your employer might decide at any moment to kidnap you -- lock the doors and not let you out. Your ferry operator may at any time choose to sink the boat. Your waiter may choose at any time to poison your food.

You must not be free.

You're absolutely right that if someone kidnaps you and holds you hostage that you then aren't free. Not only is your argument stupid here, it is entirely pointless.


For the rest of us not in La-La Land, whether we are free or not rests more upon whether our freedoms are actually being violated, not on whether they theoretically could be.

What a slave mentality. Enjoy the velvet shackles. "As long as the Massa dun't whoop me, he's a good Massa!" Never mind that the ability of the Master to do what they want to you is what constitutes slavery and servility in the first place, not whether you like it or not.

[H. E. Panqui]

timosman advises: Why can't you incorporate yourself as a non-profit and ask your boss to hire you as a consultant?:rolleyes:

:cool:

...will that get me out of paying $5,500/year in property taxes?

...maybe timosman and dinke are right:...maybe people who hate chattel/child/etc. slavery should just get some slaves themselves...maybe people who hate insane marijuana/drug laws should just beg the state for a medical card...[please please mr government man, do what you want to others...but please just leave me alone...]

...[apparently timosman and dinke are ok with stinking 'laws' that treat corporations [artificial persons] better than real people!...]

...if you two had an honest clue about the nature of 'money' you would understand there is no need for DIRECT TAXATION in the first place...ugh...republican-level tax experts!...ugh...

[Danke]

timosman advises: Why can't you incorporate yourself as a non-profit and ask your boss to hire you as a consultant?:rolleyes:

:cool:

...will that get me out of paying $5,500/year in property taxes?

...maybe timosman and dinke are right:...maybe people who hate chattel/child/etc. slavery should just get some slaves themselves...maybe people who hate insane marijuana/drug laws should just beg the state for a medical card...

...[apparently timosman and dinke are ok with 'laws' that treat corporations [artificial persons] better than real people!...]

...if you two had an honest clue about the nature of 'money' you would understand there is no need for DIRECT TAXATION in the first place...ugh...republican-level tax experts!...ugh...


You topped yourself , I didn't think your posts could get anymore idiotic.

[Ender]

The POINT here is that the 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make NO law concerning religion.

Churches were always tax-free- and still are- and were to be left alone. The whole 501(c)3 garbage was used to entice churches to incorporate so that .gov had more control.

Now the average Joe thinks this has to be done, but it does not.

[helmuth_hubener]

Replies in bold.

And you still don't care to figure out how to properly quote things. :rolleyes:

That's OK. I'm down with all kinds. I get along with everybody!

You write: "Way to miss the point."

I rarely miss the point. However, in fairness, I likewise rarely make an effort to give any indication that I understood the point. Furthermore, oftentimes I am not very interested in the original point at all. This is one of those times. So, it is entirely reasonable for you to feel this way.

Let me offer you the Olive Branch of Understanding: What I understand you to be saying is that if one party -- namely, the State -- can pass whatever oppressive nonsense it wants to from year to year to exploit, manage, and micro-manage the second party -- you -- then that second party -- you -- is not a very free man. He is not a free and independent individual. Even if one year the first party decides to "go easy" and only enslave him 5% of the time, that's small comfort, for the very next year he may increase the burden back to 30% enslavement. Or more -- whatever strikes his fancy. Certainly that cannot be called freedom! None would call that freedom but the totally delusional!

Is that about it?

[Sonny Tufts]

The POINT here is that the 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make NO law concerning religion.

Churches were always tax-free- and still are- and were to be left alone. The whole 501(c)3 garbage was used to entice churches to incorporate so that .gov had more control.

The Free Exercise Clause doesn't mean churches can't be taxed any more than the Free Press Clause means that a publisher can't be taxed. While it's true that legislatures have historically granted tax exemptions to churches, the Constitution doesn't require it. See, for example, Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990), a unanimous decision holding that a religious organization can be subject to a generally applicable sales tax.

501(c)(3) doesn't require any organization to incorporate, and 501(c)(3) status allows donors to deduct their contributions for income tax purposes.

[Ender]

The Free Exercise Clause doesn't mean churches can't be taxed any more than the Free Press Clause means that a publisher can't be taxed. While it's true that legislatures have historically granted tax exemptions to churches, the Constitution doesn't require it. See, for example, Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990), a unanimous decision holding that a religious organization can be subject to a generally applicable sales tax.

501(c)(3) doesn't require any organization to incorporate, and 501(c)(3) status allows donors to deduct their contributions for income tax purposes.

Try reading the 1st Amendment instead of later reinterpretations from TPTB.

Churches were NEVER to be taxed- this was understood before the Constitution was ever in place. A 501(c)3 is a .gov power play to grab the natural rights & donors CAN give & deduct to a church w/o a 501(c)3.

[Sonny Tufts]

Try reading the 1st Amendment instead of later reinterpretations from TPTB.

SCOTUS decisions are what will be applied in the real world.


A 501(c)3 is a .gov power play to grab the natural rights & donors CAN give & deduct to a church w/o a 501(c)3.

No church is ever forced to apply for or receive 501(c)(3) status. In fact, under the statutes churches don't need to apply for 501(c)(3) status in order to be tax-exempt (almost all other charitable organizations do) or to receive tax-deductible contributions. But since tax-exempt status and tax deductions aren't automatic and are entirely up to the legislature, even a contribution to a church won't be deductible if the church spends too much time attempting to influence legislation or if it intervenes in political campaigns. In such a case it could also lose its tax-exempt status.

I'm sure you think that this shouldn't be the law, but the plain fact is, it is.

[H. E. Panqui]

...a great person once roared at me, 'WILL YOU STFU ABOUT "THE CONSTITUTION"....MAYBE YOU CAN AFFIRM THAT FATALLY-FLAWED "SOCIAL CONTRACT" :rolleyes: ...NOT I...AND HERE IS, LARGELY, WHERE THE PROBLEM BEGINS AND ENDS...WE LIVE IN THE STINKING, ROTTEN, STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID, FATALLY-FLAWED, LEGISLATED OUTCOME OF A BUNCH OF FATALLY-FLAWED, REPUBLICRAT, MONETARY IGNORAMU$, HAND-PUPPET$ WHO HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO A FATALLY-FLAWED DOCUMENT....THE MORE DECENT, AWARE AMONG US TEND TO NOT SWEAR OATHS TO FATALLY-FLAWED DOCUMENTS...AND SO THE TENDENCY IS FOR THE LESS DECENT, MORE UNAWARE AMONG US TO CONCENTRATE PRECISELY WHERE DECENT, AWARE PEOPLE DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF FATALLY-FLAWED, REPUBLICRAT-LEVEL 'THINKERS'...'POLITICIANS'...."LEADERS" :rolleyes: WITHOUT INTEGRITY...PEOPLE WHO ARE MERE CAT$-PAW$...POLITICAL WHORE$ TO BE USED BY OUR VERY REAL, $UPER-$ECRETIVE ADMINI$TRATIVE MA$TERS....


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hickory.html

Against Corporations of every kind, the objection may be brought that whatever power is given to them is so much taken from either the government or the people. As the object of charters is to give to members of companies powers which they would not possess in their individual capacity, the very existence of monied corporations is incompatible with equality of rights.
Corporations are unfavorable to the progress of national wealth. As the Argus eyes of private interest do not watch over their concerns, their affairs are much more carelessly and much more expensively conducted than those of individuals. What would be the condition of the merchant who should trust everything to his clerks, or of the farmer who should trust everything to his laborers? Corporations are obliged to trust everything to stipendiaries, who are oftentimes less trustworthy than the clerks of the merchant or the laborers of the farmer.
Such are the inherent defects of corporations that they never can succeed, except when the laws or circumstances give them a monopoly or advantages partaking of the nature of a monopoly. Sometimes they are protected by direct inhibitions to individuals to engage in the same business. Sometimes they are protected by an exemption from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. Sometimes the extent of their capital or of their credit gives them a control of the market. They cannot, even then, work as cheap as the individual trader, but they can afford to throw away enough money in the contest to ruin the individual trader, and then they have the market to themselves.
If a poor man suffers aggression from a rich man, the disproportion of power is such that it may be difficult for him to obtain redress; but if a man is aggrieved by a corporation, he may have all its stockholders, all its clerks, and all its protégés for parties against him. Corporations are so powerful as frequently to bid defiance to government.
If a man is unjust or an extortioner, society is, sooner or later, relieved from the burden by his death. But corporations never die. What is worst of all (if worse than what has already been stated be possible) is that want of moral feeling and responsibility which characterizes corporations. A celebrated English writer expressed the truth, with some roughness, but with great force, when he declared that "corporations have neither bodies to be kicked , nor souls to be damned."
All these objections apply to our American banks. They are protected, in most of the states, by directed inhibitions on individuals engaging in the same business. They are exempted from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. If a poor man cannot pay his debts, his bed is, in some of the states, taken from under him. If that will not satisfy his creditors, his body is imprisoned. The shareholders in a bank are entitled to all the gain they can make by banking operations; but if the undertaking chances to be unsuccessful, the loss falls on those who have trusted them. They are responsible only for the amount of stock they may have subscribed.

[DamianTV]

There is a big difference between Churches (of any religion) and God(s).

Churches are of men, and most believe no one is above their god. (again, that varies for non christian religions, but mostly that is not a US problem) Churches typically are not taxed because they are, well, were, one of the foundations of Population Control. Belief, Money, Violence. Yes, churches are a big part of the Belief portion of control in the efforts of corrupt humans to control god, or at least the populations image of god. Education and MSM are the other big players. Education is not taxed as it is a form of govt, and MSM is taxed because they operate like a business.

Just my two cents...