[Vision2020] vandals strike again

[Paul Rumelhart]

Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>  
>
> I think we mostly agree. You just offer excuses for the behavior which 
> I don’t accept.
>
>  
>
> One example of this error in thinking is the argument for churches to 
> be taxed.
>
>  
>
> If political organizations are tax exempt, like political parties, why 
> can’t churches be?
>
> Churches are doing three things that are tax exempt, 1) Exercising 
> Religion, 2) Administering to the needy, and 3) Expressing their 
> political beliefs.
>

They are, but they are subject to different rules and different 
constraints, because they are filed under different tax laws.

 From the tax guide for churches and religious organizations 
(http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf):

All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including church­es and 
religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
                                                            
 - their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or 
individual,

 - they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests,

 - they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to 
attempting to influence legislation,

 - they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign 
on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and

 - the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or 
violate fundamental public policy.

 From the Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations page at 
irs.gov 
(http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id=96350,00.html):

A political organization subject to 527 is a party, committee, 
association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) 
organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or 
indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for 
an exempt function.

A political organization must be organized for the primary purpose of 
carrying on exempt function activities. A political organization's 
primary activities must be exempt function activities. A political 
organization may engage in activities that are not exempt function 
activities, but these may not be its primary activities.

To be exempt, a political organization must file a timely notice with 
the IRS that it is to be treated as a tax-exempt organization.

They are different "social contracts", or whatever they should be 
called.  Because churches can find it hard to carry out meaningful 
charitable work if they are taxed by the government, they are given a 
tax break as long as they follow the above rules.  Political 
organizations, as long as they stick to fund-raising and candidate 
advocacy, get a similar tax break. 

If a church attempts to push a political candidate or to influence 
voter's choices, then they have broken the agreement that allows them to 
be tax exempt.  I remember the IRS coming down on a few churches in one 
of the Bush elections because they were attempting to influence their 
parishioners to vote for him.

>  
>
> Now, the only reason to tax a church is if it opens up a for profit 
> business. Then it should be taxed. Or if it has CEOs and the like that 
> make sizable salaries and profits.
>
>  
>
> If one understands politics, you know, that no organization or person 
> is apolitical. It cannot be. Every interaction we have with another 
> person is political, it may just be on a smaller scale, a baby crying 
> may be politicking for milk, or Priest saying not to support abortion, 
> it is all political. You cannot have such a thing as an apolitical 
> organization, especially Churches.  
>
>  
>
> “One of our most basic American Values, by the way, is
> freedom of religion.  There is no freedom of religion if one religion is
> pushed above all others (including the absence of religion).”
>
>  
>
> I agree. But Atheists want to take away freedom of religion, and 
> replace it with NO Religion. They want to be free from religion. 
> People cannot be banned from religion in public and still say our 
> First Amendment rights are not being violated.
>

It's called a level playing field.  The government does not push, say, 
Sharia law on it's citizens because not every American is Muslim.  
Neither does it push atheism, whatever that would entail, on it's 
citizens because not every American is an atheist.  Even if every single 
person in the U.S. happened to be a Scientologist, the government should 
still strive to be un-biased in it's actions that could affect or 
promote religions, because somebody could convert to Wicca tomorrow.

On the other hand, the government should stay out of our heads.  They 
should not interfere with your faith, or any one's faith or lack of 
faith.  They should let us all believe as we wish, and to communicate 
about our beliefs openly and without censure.

Lucky for me, that's how our government is currently arranged, for the 
most part.

>  
>
> It is just not possible to both include and exclude God at the same 
> time. One side has to prevail. Which one is constitutionally 
> protected? It is more damaging to a believer not to be allowed to 
> practice their faith than it is for the non-believe to endure His 
> inclusion.
>

It's easy for the government to both include and exclude God at the same 
time. It includes Him by not interfering with individual's private 
beliefs or worship practices.  It excludes Him by failing to use it's 
resources to formally establish His religion.  This is the exact same 
contract the government has with Allah, Zeus, Odin, Cthulhu, and Ganesha 
- it should work for Him as well.

Paul

>
> Your Friend,
>
>  
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
>      
>
>