Gov't power to shut down churches

[jamil]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.)

Paying taxes does not equate to shutting down. It may equate to less money for projects, salaries, etc. Given most organizations pay taxes and don't shutter the doors, what's the basis to assume churches couldn't do the same.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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?

They don't. However tax exempt status comes with rules. If you want tax exempt status, you follow those rules. Else every business or PAC is a church for tax purposes.

 

[T.Lex]

Paying taxes does not equate to shutting down. It may equate to less money for projects, salaries, etc. Given most organizations pay taxes and don't shutter the doors, what's the basis to assume churches couldn't do the same.

I don't know what church you go to (and in the friendliest way possible, I don't care) but could it still be effective paying ~ 20% of donations in taxes? Most churches don't have any real source of income other than donations. (Again, I'm talking about "normal" churches, not the ones that seem like they are printing money.)

And keep in mind, that's about have of the average corporate marginal tax rate in the US, which is about 40% IIRC.

Plus, giving money to Uncle Sam that could otherwise go to community outreach seems a bit... socialist.

 

[historian]

Churches were traditionally tax-exempt. LBJ had the tax code changed in 54 in order to silence churches on civil rights.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

There is one denomination that we're all familiar with that serves as a front for the biggest, most well-organized, most well-funded and oldest pedophile ring in human history.

If THEY can't be shut down you sure as hell can't shut down mosques.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't know what church you go to (and in the friendliest way possible, I don't care) but could it still be effective paying ~ 20% of donations in taxes? Most churches don't have any real source of income other than donations. (Again, I'm talking about "normal" churches, not the ones that seem like they are printing money.)

And keep in mind, that's about have of the average corporate marginal tax rate in the US, which is about 40% IIRC.

Plus, giving money to Uncle Sam that could otherwise go to community outreach seems a bit... socialist.

The churches money management issues are not the same as the gov't simply shutting them down. Churches exist in a "free market" of religion. If people want to go to that particular church, they will fund it adequately, attract sufficient membership to support it, and/or appoint people into leadership positions who can properly manage the money. If they cannot or will not do that, the church may fold. Taxed or tax exempted does not change that basic fact. What is under discussion here is simply declaring something cannot exist regardless of the wishes of those involved. If you really can't see the difference, I don't think I can explain it to you.

 

[T.Lex]

The churches money management issues are not the same as the gov't simply shutting them down. Churches exist in a "free market" of religion. If people want to go to that particular church, they will fund it adequately, attract sufficient membership to support it, and/or appoint people into leadership positions who can properly manage the money. If they cannot or will not do that, the church may fold. Taxed or tax exempted does not change that basic fact. What is under discussion here is simply declaring something cannot exist regardless of the wishes of those involved. If you really can't see the difference, I don't think I can explain it to you.

I understand the philosophical distinction, but in practice, there is very little real difference.

Regardless, we can keep it at the philosophical level.

So, if there can be legal consequences for crossing an IRS violation and engaging in political speech from the pulpit, why can't we also say that advocating for jihad from the pulpit runs afoul of the IRS? Any philosophical reason to avoid that?

 

[jamil]

I understand the philosophical distinction, but in practice, there is very little real difference.

Regardless, we can keep it at the philosophical level.

So, if there can be legal consequences for crossing an IRS violation and engaging in political speech from the pulpit, why can't we also say that advocating for jihad from the pulpit runs afoul of the IRS? Any philosophical reason to avoid that?

But jihad is protected speech!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Before the Revolutionary War, the churches were an important part in getting the future Americans to fight for independence. I can see why governments would want to control what they say.

 

[jamil]

Before the Revolutionary War, the churches were an important part in getting the future Americans to fight for independence. I can see why governments would want to control what they say.

One man's revolutionary is anther's jihadist. I think at some point we'll need to draw some distinctive lines.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One man's revolutionary is anther's jihadist. I think at some point we'll need to draw some distinctive lines.

That seems pretty straight forward...one is fighting for freedom on conscience, free exercise of religion of your choice (or none at all); the other is fighting for one religion to be tolerated and to rule the governmental affairs. That's pretty distinctive to me.

 

[JTScribe]

One man's revolutionary is anther's jihadist. I think at some point we'll need to draw some distinctive lines.

FWIW, if there's a line, I think could be stated as such.

Fundamentalist Islam is an entire system - social, political, and religious. It's part of their belief structure that they must convert or subjugate non-believers, and that the system of government should be a part of it. That, to me, is obviously incompatible with Western ideals. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, whatever, are distinctly different in that they recognize secular authority and can abide for lack of a better term, the separation of church and state. This is what sharia means to the fundamentalist. As such, I think you could argue that any imam arguing for sharia within the United States is arguing for the overturn of the Constitution, and thus possibly insurrection.

Now, can Islam have a reformation? Could an Islamic Martin Luther appear and take the doctrine in another way. Very possible given how decentralized religious authority is in the faith. How likely is it? I have no clue.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Will Americans support government spying on sermons and their reactions in the crowd at these institutions?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I understand the philosophical distinction, but in practice, there is very little real difference.

Regardless, we can keep it at the philosophical level.

So, if there can be legal consequences for crossing an IRS violation and engaging in political speech from the pulpit, why can't we also say that advocating for jihad from the pulpit runs afoul of the IRS? Any philosophical reason to avoid that?

When did this conversation become about tax status?

 

[jamil]

When did this conversation become about tax status?

I think here?

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.

 

[printcraft]

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...........

I know this is a weird question, and one you probably have had no reason to ask your extended family.....

Are there any mosques they would not attend?
If there are, why?

I'm just curious if I'm missing a component of my conclusion.
(Ignore if you would prefer to keep this closed.)

 

[T.Lex]

When did this conversation become about tax status?

Well, for one thing, it would provide a basis for shutting down a church.

Another point is that it is one arrow in the quiver of government penalties.

But, that's really somewhat beside the point. Is there any reason that would justify a church/mosque/synagogue being shut down by the gov't? Thats as opposed to arresting people for criminal acts who are leaders of the church. Those are 2 different things.

 

[Jludo]

FWIW, if there's a line, I think could be stated as such.

Fundamentalist Islam is an entire system - social, political, and religious. It's part of their belief structure that they must convert or subjugate non-believers, and that the system of government should be a part of it. That, to me, is obviously incompatible with Western ideals. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, whatever, are distinctly different in that they recognize secular authority and can abide for lack of a better term, the separation of church and state. This is what sharia means to the fundamentalist. As such, I think you could argue that any imam arguing for sharia within the United States is arguing for the overturn of the Constitution, and thus possibly insurrection.

Now, can Islam have a reformation? Could an Islamic Martin Luther appear and take the doctrine in another way. Very possible given how decentralized religious authority is in the faith. How likely is it? I have no clue.

I think you conflate fundamentalist islam with general islam, millions of Muslims live peacefully in secular society with no problems. I'm not sure islam needs a Martin Luther figure to change the entire religion, just need see a move away fromfundamentalism. *cough saudi arabia

 

[JTScribe]

I think you conflate fundamentalist islam with general islam, millions of Muslims live peacefully in secular society with no problems. I'm not sure islam needs a Martin Luther figure to change the entire religion, just need see a move away fromfundamentalism. *cough saudi arabia

True, but it's honestly not just Saudi Arabia. I think it could be argued that the majority of Islamic nations are decidedly lacking in what westerners would regard as expected civil rights. Even the more westernized ones such as Dubai have bizarre legalities as a result of sharia.

Prime example: 'I am innocent but was left to rot in Dubai jail and almost stoned to death', says Briton | World | News | Daily Express

Maybe it doesn't take religious leaders so much as it might require leader leaders. Jordan is rather progressive, socially speaking, and a lot of that can be attributed to the King and Queen.