Gov't power to shut down churches

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think churches should have tax free status

I do... along with everyone else. Tax goods, not entities.

 

[MisterChester]

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

If they are open to the public, then they have no expectation of privacy.

 

[Libertarian01]

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.)

Well... Prostitution existed before the USA did and we made that illegal. Same thing, right?

As for the rest, I'm with ya! Let's go after them for all their shenanigans. I'm just starting with the low hanging fruit.

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?

I am all for freedom of speech. I am all for tax exempt organizations such as churches doing their "good works." However, ya'll don't get both at the same time.

Here https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf See page #4, Example #5. A preacherman has ALL the rights to freedom of speech that he/she wants. He can go out and campaign as an individual sovereign citizen. What he/she is NOT allowed to do is drag the tax free organization into this under the colour of the collar. (<- Like what I did there? I thought it was cute!)

Let us remember WHY organizations are granted tax free status: to do their mission in regards to feeding the poor/educating folks/transporting the disabled/etc/etc/etc. While EVERYONE else at a local level competes in a free market with the burden of paying taxes these folks do not have the tax monkey on their backs. They get a free pass.

I don't think it is a lot to require them to stay on point to keep the tax monkey off of them. So as an employee of a nonprofit myself this is what I like to think of as self policing. We are granted special privileges that should not be abused.

Regards,

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If we're all about folks paying the taxes they should but don't, imagine if we had the state tax collectors monitor all of our (among all the others) Amazon, Midway, and Brownells purchases to make sure we paid the taxes we're all supposed to. I mean, if we're all for monitoring one group of people to make sure they pay the taxes they're required to by law, we should be all for monitoring everybody else, in everything they do to make sure everyone is being treated fairly.

 

[Jludo]

If we're all about folks paying the taxes they should but don't, imagine if we had the state tax collectors monitor all of our (among all the others) Amazon, Midway, and Brownells purchases to make sure we paid the taxes we're all supposed to. I mean, if we're all for monitoring one group of people to make sure they pay the taxes they're required to by law, we should be all for monitoring everybody else, in everything they do to make sure everyone is being treated fairly.

I thought Amazon collected state sales tax now.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I thought Amazon collected state sales tax now.

If your order comes out of Indiana.

 

[GIJEW]

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

in this essay Hamilton said it himself, why a bill of rights was necessary: "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do so?" Because tyrants don't respect limits and will abuse their power. As it is, our civil rights are eroded or outright attacked from both right and left in spite of explicit prohibitions. If there was no Bill of Rights, even the concept of civil rights would be lost.

 

[CampingJosh]

I don't think churches should have tax free status

The power to tax is the power to control.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I don't think churches should have tax free status

I disagree. Most (key word) churches are not-for profit entities. The proceeds from the offering plate are used to pay the bills, mortgage, salaries, etc. Church employees pay income taxes on their incomes, just like the rest of us working stiffs. Any surplus (which is VERY rare) is typically invested or saved to help cover future large expenses or for a rainy day or future short fall.

Removing tax free status would in essence be double taxing.

Taxing churches would also give the government in effect control over the operation of said church, and would allow the government to institute certain secular restrictions on it (such as mandatory coverage for birth control).

 

[The Bubba Effect]

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?

I would be mad as hell about this if it happened in my country.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

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

It seems some have no problem with this.Teaming up with the irSS? Turn in your neighbors,turn in your parents......oh yea,hey Doc.

 

[phylodog]

I would disagree with the US Government shutting down a church, that is not what this country is about.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the US Government shutting down a mosque since it is not simply a church and Islam is not simply a religion. I believe we will eventually see USSC decisions based on this as the Muslims will not relent and eventually there will be attempts to drive them out or at least underground.

What is Islam? - Political Islam

 

[jblomenberg16]

I would disagree with the US Government shutting down a church, that is not what this country is about.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the US Government shutting down a mosque since it is not simply a church and Islam is not simply a religion. I believe we will eventually see USSC decisions based on this as the Muslims will not relent and eventually there will be attempts to drive them out or at least underground.

What is Islam? - Political Islam

I would agree with you, and once the government heads down that slippery slope, there really wouldn't be anything stopping them from starting to shut down the Westboro Baptists, the Joel Oosteen mega church, your local Catholic Parish, etc.

As much as I'm frustrated by terrorism right now, and do feel that there are radicals doing very bad things under the cover of religion (which they know is harder to fight), shutting down churches is extremely dangerous for everyone in the US, even if they aren't religious.

We are in some strange times, and I could see some Christians and other denominations actually sticking up for the Mosques in a sign of religious solidarity.


We need to remember that the 1st Amendment, among other things, prohibits the adoption of a state religion, but does not prohibit free practice of religion by the citizens. It is the separate of the state out of church affairs, and the freedom OF religion (including none at all), not the freedom FROM religion.

Really, so long as the practice of religion doesn't break any other fundamental laws of this nation (an example would be ritualistic killing of humans for sacrifice...aka murder), the religion is free to be practiced.

 

[PistolBob]

If your preaching killing people because they don't follow your religious beliefs or religious laws then you're a terrorist and shouldn't be protected by freedom of religion. Christian, Muslim, or Jehovah's Witness. Doesn't matter, shut it down. Of coarse we know which ones wanna cut off heads and blow themselves up and it's typically Muslims

You mean like the church that President Obama attended in Chicago for years and years? Is the President a terrorist?

 

[BugI02]

nah

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I would agree with you, and once the government heads down that slippery slope, there really wouldn't be anything stopping them from starting to shut down the Westboro Baptists, the Joel Oosteen mega church, your local Catholic Parish, etc.

As much as I'm frustrated by terrorism right now, and do feel that there are radicals doing very bad things under the cover of religion (which they know is harder to fight), shutting down churches is extremely dangerous for everyone in the US, even if they aren't religious.

We are in some strange times, and I could see some Christians and other denominations actually sticking up for the Mosques in a sign of religious solidarity.


We need to remember that the 1st Amendment, among other things, prohibits the adoption of a state religion, but does not prohibit free practice of religion by the citizens. It is the separate of the state out of church affairs, and the freedom OF religion (including none at all), not the freedom FROM religion.

Really, so long as the practice of religion doesn't break any other fundamental laws of this nation (an example would be ritualistic killing of humans for sacrifice...aka murder), the religion is free to be practiced.

This right sure had a tempering this last year.I fear more people are becoming desensitized and less protective of 1A.The press should be the protector,instead it is instigator.

 

[BugI02]

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

Cleaver, Danton, Jesus, Juarez, King, Lenin, Lumumba, Luther, Paine, Pierce, Robespierre et al

 

[BugI02]

If we're all about folks paying the taxes they should but don't, imagine if we had the state tax collectors monitor all of our (among all the others) Amazon, Midway, and Brownells purchases to make sure we paid the taxes we're all supposed to. I mean, if we're all for monitoring one group of people to make sure they pay the taxes they're required to by law, we should be all for monitoring everybody else, in everything they do to make sure everyone is being treated fairly.

And then just a short slip down that slope and we arrive at monitoring everybody all the time to make sure they obey [insert latest gov't overreach here]. No thanks.

 

[PaulF]

The government should never have the power to shut down a church.

The Government should absolutely have the power to shut down a criminal organization masquerading as a church.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.)

I never asked, but it's usually just whichever is closest.

With the normal caveats that Islam has different branches and idealogies within, just as Christianity does, mosques are not directly equated to churches. You don't really have a "home mosque" and there's no real hierarchy of preachers, deacons, bishops, and what have you. It is quite possible to be driving, the call to prayer goes off, and you pull into a mosque's parking lot, enter, and there's no Imam there. Someone, maybe the oldest guy, maybe the guy who got their first, maybe a popular guy in the neighborhood, leads the prayer and then everyone goes back about their business. It's not a place for pot lucks and youth groups, it is simply a place to pray. Other mosques have imams or teachers and are more like a Christian church in that it's a source of community. The mosque I converted at specialized in teaching converts, and was fed by referrals. If you wanted to study Arabic you could at their night school. There was no indoctrination or even a specific "denomination" for the mosque. Everyone was welcome to come and learn about Islam and everyone could take Arabic language classes regardless of if they intended to convert or not. There was no orthodoxy, you did not have to believe the same as the Imam. The "testing" was that you could do the ritual cleansing before prayer (Wudu), accepted that there is only one God, Mohammed was his prophet (note, not the only prophet or even the last prophet), and were converting of your own free will. The only "in the weeds" conversation I ever had was about evolution, which this particular imam rejected. There were mosques that had a reputation for more radical or revolutionary teachings, but were mostly in poorer neighborhoods.

There's also no requirement to go to mosque, even for prayer. My mother in law does not go because she sits in a chair to pray now due to mobility issues. My father in law still goes on Fridays, but for routine prayer does it at home (and he's not real dedicated to the 5 times a day thing).