She needs to be 'corrected' by her husband...

[Don Quixote]

tax exemptions for religious institutions (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) should be abolished period

and for any not for profit that advocates for any candidate for public office or any addition, change, removal, etc. of public law

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I prefer actual facts...this organization is openly defying the law...Openly Defying The Law...what part of that don't you understand?

You mean like the illegal aliens, that live here in the US??
<didn't prepare for that one, did you>

 

[Haiku]

You are an idiot...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I prefer actual facts...this organization is openly defying the law...Openly Defying The Law...what part of that don't you understand?

You mean like the illegal aliens, that live here in the US??
<didn't prepare for that one, did you>

You are an idiot...

So you're only worried about those that are "...Openly Defying The Law...", when you agree with the law; but you ignore the laws that you don't agree with.

You are skank hypocrite.

 

[Haiku]

That's your gig fool...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's your gig fool...

Can't find a way to defend your own stupidity, can you skank!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I prefer actual facts...this organization is openly defying the law...Openly Defying The Law...what part of that don't you understand?

Don't pretend you don't have a problem with people openly defying our laws. You are laughable

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I'm not against it. My argument isn't against taxing churches or unions. I think that judging what beliefs make a religion and who to tax is IMO, a huge step in the wrong direction and against the 1st Amendment, or endorsing certain gatherings like unions that are often partisan is also a step in the wrong direction. The CWA, the union at our work (not in my area, we're not in the union in my area), posts a list of who to vote for, etc. every year. I guess I should take a picture of it this year and send it on to the IRS, eh?

You should post it here.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

tax exemptions for religious institutions (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) should be abolished period

and for any not for profit that advocates for any candidate for public office or any addition, change, removal, etc. of public law

So Sierra Club? MoveOn? Unions? NARAL? Do you really want to take this to its logical conclusion? Or is your indignation confined to churches? I mean you libs claim to be all about fair play and all.

Here is a thought experiment for you. Should public unions be allowed to participate in the political process given their obvious conflict of interest?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I prefer actual facts...this organization is openly defying the law...Openly Defying The Law...what part of that don't you understand?

sort of like people who smoke marijuana, then.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Or is your indignation confined to churches?

obviously.......and more specifically, Christian churches......

 

[Timshel]

So Sierra Club? MoveOn? Unions? NARAL? Do you really want to take this to its logical conclusion? Or is your indignation confined to churches? I mean you libs claim to be all about fair play and all.

Here is a thought experiment for you. Should public unions be allowed to participate in the political process given their obvious conflict of interest?

I agree, largely, that DQ's argument taken to its logical conclusion would turn out badly. The same is true though if we allowed churches to become too involved in candidate endorsement, though. That is, they would be prefenced over PAC's (due to the tax treatment of donations to them) and probably turn into full blown political parties if there were no limits on their ability to engage in politics. Anybody that hasw any respect for the good churches do (and I do) should be bothered by that thought.

I would prefer the churches follow the law as it exists and not try so hard to force a conflict. If they insist then I would argue for removing their tax exmption as it would be preferrable to seeing them being perverted into a political organization.

The reason unions are given some leeway is because that IS their interest. In other words, if a union could not support various laws and policies it's abilities would be greatly circumscribed. I don't see why they should be able to explicitly endorse candidates, though. But, maybe, they get around with a PAC or some other form of organization that acts outside the bounds of their usual union services. I don't know.

 

[Timshel]

If you are going to try to take this off course, then what is the connection. How do illegal immigrants OPENLY defy our laws? Do they go down to home depot and hold signs that say "illegal immigrant, will work for food and slap your wife if she complains."

Where is the open defiance?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

If you are going to try to take this off course, then what is the connection. How do illegal immigrants OPENLY defy our laws? Do they go down to home depot and hold signs that say "illegal immigrant, will work for food and slap your wife if she complains."

Where is the open defiance?

Well if you break the law aren't you openly defying the law? Doesn't it seem counterintuitive?

 

[hazlnut]

Interesting how these religious types get angry and lash out isn't it?



- Hmmm. Have you ever notice how these so-called lovers of peace, and turn-the-other-cheekers seem to default to Old Testament practices of beating those who contradict them when ''The Jesus Material'' ain't working???? I have........

Men rule doncha know... when will the IRS come down on these sleeze bags.

How do we make sure this church loses their tax-exempt status?

This is such a clear violation of the law and shaming the woman....

These people have really nothing to do with true Christianity.

 

[zappasguitar]

Again, using a power of government to try to force them to stay silent is an infringement and they (the IRS) know it. There is a reason that the IRS doesn't go after these churches that are literally flaunting it, and it is because they know that they will more than likely lose. They've been doing it for years, and the movement is growing. It isn't a partisan movement, both liberal pastors and conservative pastors participate.

No one is forcing churches, their leaders or congregants to stay silent.

Church leaders are just as free to speak their minds politically as anyone else in this great nation.

But as we've determined many times before, words have consequences, and if churches wish to continue enjoying their preferred status as tax exempt, then they must obey the law.

 

[Phantasmal]

I agree, largely, that DQ's argument taken to its logical conclusion would turn out badly. The same is true though if we allowed churches to become too involved in candidate endorsement, though. That is, they would be prefenced over PAC's (due to the tax treatment of donations to them) and probably turn into full blown political parties if there were no limits on their ability to engage in politics. Anybody that hasw any respect for the good churches do (and I do) should be bothered by that thought.

I would prefer the churches follow the law as it exists and not try so hard to force a conflict. If they insist then I would argue for removing their tax exmption as it would be preferrable to seeing them being perverted into a political organization.

The reason unions are given some leeway is because that IS their interest. In other words, if a union could not support various laws and policies it's abilities would be greatly circumscribed. I don't see why they should be able to explicitly endorse candidates, though. But, maybe, they get around with a PAC or some other form of organization that acts outside the bounds of their usual union services. I don't know.

When we allow churches to become involved in government we end up with things like the witch executions and the Inquisition. It is why the Founding Fathers decided it best to have a separation of powers.

 

[Phantasmal]

I agree, largely, that DQ's argument taken to its logical conclusion would turn out badly. The same is true though if we allowed churches to become too involved in candidate endorsement, though. That is, they would be prefenced over PAC's (due to the tax treatment of donations to them) and probably turn into full blown political parties if there were no limits on their ability to engage in politics. Anybody that hasw any respect for the good churches do (and I do) should be bothered by that thought.

I would prefer the churches follow the law as it exists and not try so hard to force a conflict. If they insist then I would argue for removing their tax exmption as it would be preferrable to seeing them being perverted into a political organization.

The reason unions are given some leeway is because that IS their interest. In other words, if a union could not support various laws and policies it's abilities would be greatly circumscribed. I don't see why they should be able to explicitly endorse candidates, though. But, maybe, they get around with a PAC or some other form of organization that acts outside the bounds of their usual union services. I don't know.

When we allow churches to become involved in government we end up with things like the witch executions and the Inquisition. It is why the Founding Fathers decided it best to have a separation of powers.

 

[zappasguitar]

Well if you break the law aren't you openly defying the law?

No.

Doesn't it seem counterintuitive?

No.

 

[Timshel]

Well if you break the law aren't you openly defying the law? Doesn't it seem counterintuitive?

No. Open defiance implies they are letting everyone know that they are violating the law and have no intention of complying. Most illegal immigrants are doing their best to stay under the radar.