Gov't power to shut down churches

[BehindBlueI's]

A church is a building. Shutting it down will not stop the gatherings from occurring. It will only serve to reinforce the message the extremists want, that there is a war on your faith.

What would YOUR reaction be if the government shut down your church? Shrug and wander off, or adopt a siege mentality and rally? The mere notion of "the war on Christmas" or the like affects some folks pretty deeply. Shutting their church? Right.

 

[T.Lex]

What would YOUR reaction be if the government shut down your church?

As I recall, there has been an implicit threat of that in recent years. Our Catholic priests are warned every presidential election cycle that preaching politics can be considered an IRS violation. Put that not-for-profit designation in jeopardy and stuff gets real.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As I recall, there has been an implicit threat of that in recent years. Our Catholic priests are warned every presidential election cycle that preaching politics can be considered an IRS violation. Put that not-for-profit designation in jeopardy and stuff gets real.

Shut the church down or revoke tax free status? Let's not conflate issues.

 

[T.Lex]

Shut the church down or revoke tax free status? Let's not conflate issues.

Well, it is basically the same at a practical level, isn't it? And the content of the message from the pulpit is the focus.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

After Paris, the French government has taken the extraordinary step of shutting down 3 mosques due to "radicalization."

3 mosques in France shut down 'on grounds of radicalization' - 13 WTHR Indianapolis



Would INGO be bothered by this if there was an effort to do that here in the US? Or is that a reasonable action to address the terror threat?

Another good thing, the FF's put that 1st Amendment in there...otherwise, the commerce clause (or some other clause) could be used to shut down any of them. Reading some of the news sites, I think the numbers of people that would support shutting down churches would be higher than we might like to imagine.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, it is basically the same at a practical level, isn't it? And the content of the message from the pulpit is the focus.

No. Not remotely the same issue.

 

[T.Lex]

No. Not remotely the same issue.

Care to elaborate why?

I mean, I will concede that some churches appear to be for-profit enterprises. But, most do not, in my experience. Requiring them to pay taxes would effectively shut them down. Doing so because the sermons are offensive to .gov becomes problematic IMHO.

Or, to approach it from another angle, from your posts I infer that you think it inappropriate to shut down a church because of sermons from the imam, but ok to revoke NFP status for an IRS violation. Is that correct? (And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out where you are on the issue.)

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't think churches should have tax free status

 

[indiucky]

Actually, the OP is about the USA, but using the French as an example.

Should this kind of thing be allowed here?

Of course....How else am I going to be able to pull up sylvain as an example that not all of us Hoosiers are a bunch of backward hillibilly gun nuts....


"Hey Sylvain!!! Say something French/European sounding so I can say I know one refined, cultured person from the Continent..."

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think churches should have tax free status

Interesting. How would that work? They pay income tax on donations?

Real estate taxes are somewhat unique. I can see the argument for requiring them to pay those - they rely on infrastructure like anyone else.

 

[Libertarian01]

This I would disagree with 100%.

HOWEVER, I would love to see an IRS agent in every pew, and when preacherman opens his piehole telling people who to vote for (or against): BOOM! No more tax free status.

Preach whatever you want (almost) to whomever you want. Just don't break the rules you agreed to so as not to pay taxes.

Regards,

Doug

 

[AtTheMurph]

Another good thing, the FF's put that 1st Amendment in there...otherwise, the commerce clause (or some other clause) could be used to shut down any of them. Reading some of the news sites, I think the numbers of people that would support shutting down churches would be higher than we might like to imagine.

I will allow Alexander Hamilton to refute your position. The adding of a Bill of Rights was the thing that guaranteed the future destruction of our Republic by growth of government powers.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.[SUP]3[/SUP] And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.

Federalist 89

 

[T.Lex]

HOWEVER, I would love to see an IRS agent in every pew, and when preacherman opens his piehole telling people who to vote for (or against): BOOM! No more tax free status.

Preach whatever you want (almost) to whomever you want. Just don't break the rules you agreed to so as not to pay taxes.

Interesting.

First, when did the Catholic church (for example) agree to this? I mean, technically, it existed before the USA did.

Second, what is magical about telling people who to vote for (or against)? I mean, why not jerk their NFP status for other things? And does it matter that it isn't a "law" but an IRS interpretation of their own regulation? (I'm pretty sure that's the case, at least.)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do we consider "incitement to violence" a crime?

 

[T.Lex]

Do we consider "incitement to violence" a crime?

I am not familiar with any such crime in Indiana.

 

[jamil]

I don't think churches should have tax free status

I don't see a problem with tax free churches. I don't really count donated money as income, per se. And I'd like to exclude a lot more from taxes than just churches. I'd like to see the concept of property tax disappear altogether.

I will allow Alexander Hamilton to refute your position. The adding of a Bill of Rights was the thing that guaranteed the future destruction of our Republic by growth of government powers.

Hamilton got it wrong. If it weren't for the 2A, for example, I doubt we'd be much better off than Western Europe for having a right to defend ourselves with firearms. But nevertheless, This republic won't endure forever, at least not as it is. Human nature guaranteed the future destruction of our Republic by growth of government powers. Powerful people don't want their power restricted and devise all kinds of ways to subvert restrictions. And people want to be safer than they are currently. That progressive tendency assures an inevitable future. At least the bill of rights requires a sort of gradual treachery to subvert them, that we might be free a little longer than without.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This I would disagree with 100%.

HOWEVER, I would love to see an IRS agent in every pew, and when preacherman opens his piehole telling people who to vote for (or against): BOOM! No more tax free status.



Preach whatever you want (almost) to whomever you want. Just don't break the rules you agreed to so as not to pay taxes.

Regards,

Doug

And where does this proposed restriction of yours come down in reference to the First Amendment? You know, the "freedom of speech" part? What makes a minister, priest, rabbi or Imam have to give up their right to political speech just because they are speaking in a religious setting?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I will allow Alexander Hamilton to refute your position. The adding of a Bill of Rights was the thing that guaranteed the future destruction of our Republic by growth of government powers.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.[SUP]3[/SUP] And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.

Federalist 89

Yeah, I know there was reluctance to have the BoRs...Just goes to show that without explicit instructions people will read whatever they want to into what's implied. Even with explicit instructions, they find penumbras and varying degrees of scrutiny to tease out whatever result they wish.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I am not familiar with any such crime in Indiana.

So I can urge my friends and casual contacts to murder you (for whatever reason) with no potential legal consequences?

 

[T.Lex]

So I can urge my friends and casual contacts to murder you (for whatever reason) with no potential legal consequences?

Right up until the point it becomes a conspiracy to actually do it.

Just remember, turnabout's fair play.