Do it!

FYI,

http://ffrf.org/

When they are faced with real evidence, they can't escape it.

I hope it works.

It will end up hitting more black churches than right wing ones...

Are they all Republicans?

going in order to test this. this will probably go in front of the scotus and how do think they'll rule.
if you look at the 1st amendment there is no wall between church and state here it is

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

this says that the gvrmnt cant laws that create a religion nor can they create laws to stop a religion

it says nothing about taxes and taxing churches

but, if the church is trying to control the government via supporting particular candidates or parties, then the government has a vested interest in the equation, therefore, taxation would be proper, no?

be less for the people who are served by the church. but churches should be taxed, all of them.

I think more research is needed because there is definitely a law about taxing Churches.

Other types of non-profits do exactly the same thing. The problem is widespread.

Just because you are a non-profit organization, doesn't mean you don't get taxed. If you read section 501 of the tax code, very few other types of organizations enjoy the same blanket exception that churches receive. For other types of organizations, there are specific requirements regarding what can be done with the money generated by the non-profit. With churches, people like Kenneth Copeland get exemptions for practically all his profits and expenses, to including jets, his airport, and his lakefront estate.

HTH

That's not to say there aren't any, but I'd question the extent to which this is occurring and if they are getting away with it the way churches are.

In some cases by churches, in others by non-religious organizations.

My point is that going after the churches for violating conditions of their tax-exempt status is fine, but the problem is not confined to churches and religious organizations. It's rampant. I saw it done by a major "community development corporation" here in San Diego, and by a few others that might surprise you if I mentioned their names. I was able to get a public apology from one.

And vice versa. If you read the fine print on their donation form they will tell you whether your contribution is tax-deductible or not. If tax-deductible, it's going to the 501c3. If it says not tax-deductible, it's not a 501c3 organization. But sometimes on the same form there will be an option to donate to the corresponding organization in the other bucket.

Are we becoming similar to the Islamic nations? Creating religious laws as secular laws? Do these wonderful Christian values religious preachers, priests, leaders not understand the intolerance that is inherent in their religious values? Isn't this what the idea of separation of church and state means? Who's right as far as Christian values goes? Catholics? Evangelicals? Baptists? Lutherans? Mormons? Do we outlaw those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of GOD? Because they will never get to Heaven. Right? The simple fact is keep RELIGION OUT OF Government! Religion should be a personal affair with GOD. Jesus was the biggest liberal on the planet. He did not discriminated because of a person's social, moral, life style, financial, gender or religious values He ministered to all. Our Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon leaders need to practice true religious values and stay out of secular issues. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's" simple but effective.

Woo Hoo!

make them enforce this law

it's been on the books for like 50 years or so and so far no one has found it to be unconstitutional so use it

Kick

...they should fill out a tax form like every other organization and prove their activities as being tax exempt, tax deductible, or taxable. Then the taxation (or exemption) is on what they do instead of on who they are.

For example, suppose your local Dressage Horse Owners' Community Center holds a forum for candidates for your city's mayor. It's a non-partisan office, but the Center invites only the Republican candidates to speak. The Democratic candidates find out about the event after it happened.

The event was free to the audience and the organization neither profited from it nor spent any money other than for their utilities, which they would have paid for if the event had never happened.

All you can do is complain to the IRS that the group violated the conditions of its tax-exempt status, and if you do nothing will happen.

This action will cut BOTH ways! I'm not saying I'm against it,but it does behoove people to THINK about the ramifications.

It provides transportation to voters after church for convenience. It's non-partisan although Dems benefit. That's not the same thing, though.

it would not affect it.

I'm pretty sure some of the churches that do "souls to the polls" also advocate for candidates, if not blatantly, at least in ways that make it clear. But I could be wrong. And, they could amend that behavior and still help push people to the polls. And that would be the right thing to do.

... we just tax all the NON-church properties and businesses they own.

The Mormons, Catholics, and the Moonies, for example, own billions of bucks worth of businesses of all kinds.

"In 1997, Time Magazine found that current LDS assets totaled $30 billion. If LDS were a corporation, Time continued, its estimated $5.9 billion in annual revenues would have placed it midway through the Fortune 500."

"In 2006, the Boston Globe revealed that the church turned a profit of roughly $55 million on a portfolio heavily concentrated in government bonds."

"In fiscal year 2009, the Evangelical Lutheran church claims to have earned $1,698,336 from “investment income”, $2,238,629 from “bequests and trusts” and another $1,003,420 in rental income. The same report lists a separate column of “temporarily restricted” revenues, on which another $1,625,000 in investment income is reported."

http://www.mint.com/blog/investing/how-churches-invest-05172010/

Yes! Yes!

social welfare instead of political ads!

REACT = Republigelicals for Establishing American Christian Theocracy

Now I wish I had taken a photo of the message board at the megachurch I pass going to work. During the run-up to Election Day, they had a "Vote No on Question 6. Don't redefine marriage." message on it 24/7. But I didn't bother since I knew the IRS wasn't enforcing the rules on churches.

And go back to cover all the years for which they have evidence.

they threatened to take the City of Steubenville to court because the city has a flag with a logo on it which included a cross. The cross was a reference to a local Jesuit college. The city argues that it is a business association, the FFRF argues it crosses the freedom from religion line.

The city had multiple offers from local attorneys to defend it from suit. They felt is was a good test case for the SCOTUS regarding separation issues. (The county voted blue, but the paper is right wing nutty as hell).

Last I heard no action was taken either side.

I gotta join this group, I like em.

keep religion out of government and keep government out of my religion.

I would love, love, love for the churches, esp. the Catholic church to pay property taxes. They use services like anyone else. I resent having to support them.

imho

insurance issue, telling congregations he was taking over their right to worship as they please.

If that wasn't a load of crap I don't know what is

This is good news