|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
If they claim exempt status, they cannot use their organization to support a candidate or party. (I'm still confused as to why the NAALCP is able to retain their exemptions).
Having legislative directives is not a violation of IRS code; prohibiting groups from doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Nate S:
furthermore, one of the purposes of the US constitution is seperation of church and state:
Christians have actively tried to return the United States to their moral foundations for more than 30 years.
You're going to have to explain that better, because it makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
You might find this article informative:
====================================================================
The IRS and Pulpit Politics
Campaigning can endanger your tax-exempt status
by John R. Throop
In the United States, the church receives its privileged tax-exempt position at the cost of outright political involvement
* * *
Before churches or their leaders engage in political activity, they should consider the consequences. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which determines whether organizations qualify for tax-exempt status, forbids churches from participating in partisan politics. Though some critics say the IRS selectively targets churches that are involved in the abortion issue, it is clear that the IRS is increasing its monitoring of church involvement in politics.
One church challenged the IRS ban on political involvement by taking it to court. On November 3, 1992, the Church at Pierce Creek, Binghamton, New York, took out a full-page ad in USA Today. Lambasting presidential candidate Bill Clinton, the advertisement concluded, "The Bible warns us not to follow another man in his sin nor help him promote sin lest God chastens us. How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?"
In 1995, the IRS revoked the Church at Pierce Creek's tax-exempt status, citing its partisan political activity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
to my knowledge they cannot try to put forth their own politcal candidate like the dems, reps, green peace, etc, but they can support things they believe in like the naacp, aclu, epa, nea, sierra club, etc.
Last edited by my csvt; 07/27/05 04:13 AM.
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489 |
yeah i just realized that it made no sense  . edited it.
anyways, what i was saying was that the constitution was created because this country is a democracy, seperation of church and state, etc.
they want to return the country to its moral "roots" but dont realize that the US's roots aren't in evangelical principles!
cheap scare tactic:
Sodomite and lesbian "marriage" is now legal in Massachusetts (and coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
more BS from the site...
Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than condemned as perversion
...that's because most people have learned to accept the fact that everyone is different. and furthermore, gay/lesbian sex isn't "unnatural." it occurs frequently in nature
1998 T-Red CSVT 3.0L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Are you saying religious groups should be unique social groups in that they refrain from attempting to gain political influence?
Now we finally get to the heart of the matter.
Yes, I am saying religious groups are unique. They have always been treated differently than other social groups under the law. The Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically call for free exercise of religion, and ban the government from establishing a state religion. Our courts have long interpreted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prohibit government from:
1. Organizing, encouraging, or discouraging prayer in the public schools,
2. Funding parochial schools (eg., voucher programs),
3. Allowing religious displays (eg., creches, crosses, menorahs) on government property when these displays convey government support of religious beliefs.
Many evangelicals are now pushing hard to change these interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and many other laws. (Hence the huge fights coming over judicial appointments.)
Originally posted by Davo:
So...'Bible Nation' means something other than 'theocracy'?
The Bible Nation remark referred to CE (see the preceding sentence?). No dollar for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Nate S:
anyways, what i was saying was that the constitution was created because this country is a democracy, seperation of church and state, etc.
they want to return the country to its moral "roots" but dont realize that the US's roots aren't in evangelical principles!
How does wanting to return this country to its moral roots involve a violation of the Constitution?
If you're including Christian Exodus and these other fringe groups as being part of mainstream Christianity, you are sorely mistaken. Most Christians I've encountered understand a Christian state would make the corruption of the faith a certainty.
Last edited by Davo; 07/27/05 04:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Nate S:
anyways, what i was saying was that the constitution was created because this country is a democracy, seperation of church and state, etc.
they want to return the country to its moral "roots" but dont realize that the US's roots aren't in evangelical principles!
How does wanting to return this country to its moral roots involve a violation of the Constitution?
If you're including Christian Exodus and these other fringe groups as being part of mainstream Christianity, you are sorely mistaken. Most Christians I've encountered understand a Christian state would make the corruption of the faith a certainty.
because their "moral roots" are...um...slightly jaded by their very strong beliefs in biblical principles
wasn't including them in mainstream christianity. i know that most xtians are not like this
1998 T-Red CSVT 3.0L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by Davo:
* * * NAALCP * * *
OK, don't tell me, let me guess. The "National Association for the Advancement of Leftist (or Leftwing) Colored People"?
Very clever. I'm guessing Ann Coulter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by Davo:
Are you saying religious groups should be unique social groups in that they refrain from attempting to gain political influence?
Now we finally get to the heart of the matter.
Yes, I am saying religious groups are unique. They have always been treated differently than other social groups under the law. The Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically call for free exercise of religion, and ban the government from establishing a state religion. Our courts have long interpreted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prohibit government from:
1. Organizing, encouraging, or discouraging prayer in the public schools,
2. Funding parochial schools (eg., voucher programs),
3. Allowing religious displays (eg., creches, crosses, menorahs) on government property when these displays convey government support of religious beliefs.
I don't see how this answers my question. You say they're unique, but then start saying random things relevant to the 'separation of church and state' issue. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine with me.
Last edited by Davo; 07/27/05 04:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
