First Amendment: Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists by promising to monitor sermons for mentions of the right to life and traditional marriage.methinks this will not involve black churches raising funds for Obama.
A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit.
The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.
The irony of this agreement is that it's being enforced by the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois "Fifth Amendment" Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers.
Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what's said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say "chilling effect"?
--snip--more at link
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073114-711290-irs-deal-with-atheists-to-monitor-churches.htmOf course not. They've not done it the past 30-40 (and more!) years of steadily increasing and blatant partisanship among many black churches. Why would they start now?
methinks this will not involve black churches raising funds for Obama.
Funny how atheists never go after a religion who's followers would likely hunt them down, drag them into the street and beat them or worse. Cowards.
Taxation without representation was the reason for keeping churches tax exempt. If churches are taxed, then they would have all the rights of any other private organization, to include running PACs. Imagine the power that would result from a PAC run by the USCCB. Talk about liberal heads exploding....
The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.
Karl Marx
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
Vladimir Lenin
Dr. Carson;
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. And the purpose of it [the divisiveness] of course is to make
people throw their hands up in disgust and say “This isn’t working. We need to move to another system.â€
Go back and read the Neo-Marxist literature. It’s all right there. All this stuff is not secret.
That’s why I encourage people all the time to go read the stuff.
You don’t have to take my word for it…Vladimir Lenin. Saul Alinsky. Karl Marx.
These people laid all this stuff out.
Dr. Carson was more direct: If a hypothetical “somebody†in the White House “wanted to destroy this nation,†he would “coincidentally†do exactly what Obama has already done.
Can you cite that?I read the hypothesis in a book: "Taxation and The Free Exercise of Religion" by John W Baker. I know that many historians and economists disagree, but the idea makes sense to me. By allowing religions to remain tax exempt, it also allows the government to limit their direct involvement in political matters. All part of the "wall of separation" mentioned by Thomas Jefferson.
I read the hypothesis in a book: "Taxation and The Free Exercise of Religion" by John W Baker. I know that many historians and economists disagree, but the idea makes sense to me. By allowing religions to remain tax exempt, it also allows the government to limit their direct involvement in political matters. All part of the "wall of separation" mentioned by Thomas Jefferson.
Of course, there are additional arguments, very strong ones, in favor of leaving churches alone when it comes to taxation, not the least of which is how does the state treat a church which cannot/will not meet its tax obligations should taxes be imposed? Do they confiscate church properties? Shut the church down? I am reminded of a quote (can't think of where it came from off the top of my head, and too lazy this morning to research it) that basically claims the power to tax contains the power to destroy. If religion is to be kept away from the influences of government, then government cannot be allowed the power to tax religion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=397&page=664 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=397&page=664)WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
397 U.S. 664
Frederick WALZ, Appellant,
v.
TAX COMMISSION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK.
No. 135.
Argued Nov. 19, 1969.
Decided May 4, 1970.
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
...Governments have not always been tolerant of religious activity, and hostility toward religion has taken many shapes and forms-economic, political, and sometimes harshly oppressive. Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes; examption constitutes a reasonable and balanced attempt to guard against those dangers....
...Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes....
...The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other....
This is why the ACA mandate is such a big deal. HUGE deal. It proposes to significantly alter the relationship between government and religion, putting government in charge. This is a power which, until now, was carefully avoided by the founders and by most previous administrations. The right to freely express and practice one's religion is a cornerstone of basic liberty, and it is being daily eroded by progressive liberal demands.
No, I do not see John W. Baker as being "tragically wrong", except that he overstates the "taxation without representation" factor in the origin of exempting churches from taxation. However, the idea that taxing churches would allow them to operate far more openly in promoting or opposing specific political issues is very real, though it is not scare mongering. In fact, the very fact that the IRS is watch dogging churches to make sure they DON'T involve themselves directly in political issues supports this conclusion. "Keep your mouths shut about politics, or you'll find yourselves paying taxes" is what is happening. Threatening churches with cancellation of their 501(c)(3) status is the only authority .gov has over keeping churches out of politics. If churches were taxed, that authority would go away, and churches would, indeed, have full rights to be directly involved with politics, to include endorsement of specific candidates and operating PACs. Now, I say that is not scare mongering, but OTOH, I would imagine that most liberals would, indeed, find the idea of church operated PACs to be frightening.
I bring up the ACA mandate because I see relationships in many things. Both instances are cases in which government claims to have authority over the practices of religious organizations (to include organizations operated by individuals with religious convictions.) Of course, the instances are different in detail and scope, but they still involve the same thing: government claiming authority over how religion may operate within established law.
The case of U.S. government vs. Hobby Lobby is a claim by .gov that secular law trumps religious convictions. It takes the position that people must give up their religious beliefs in order to operate a business that falls under government regulation. (meaning ALL businesses.) Seems their idea is if you want to fully practice religious convictions, you can't own or operate a business. If you do own and operate a business, then you have no right to freely practice your religion. And while SCOTUS did rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, when one reads the decision carefully, they did NOT actually rule in favor of religious freedom. The deciding factor was not that the 1st Amendment trumps the ACA, but rather that the state did not prove an overriding interest, ONLY due to the fact that the ACA had already granted multiple exceptions to the BC mandate. IOW, if the state CAN show an overriding interest, then NONE of our liberties are protected. Seemingly a victory, the wording of the decision states that all .gov needs to take away any of our freedoms is to prove the state has an "overriding interest" in doing so.
In short, it is all a pattern of behavior which indicates that we have no liberty except that which the government so graciously allows us to keep. This is an attitude which has slowly developed over time, but is now ripe and mature in its claim of government authority over the People. It is an attitude which must be changed.
Do enough churches even operate in the black where there would be any profits to have to pay taxes on?
It's not about profit, more about the land and structures.
I can almost see your point, but I'm not convinced. There is nothing stopping individuals from creating PACs and 501c3's to further their political aims which is why we are seeing the current dust up with regards to the IRS and tax exempt organizations that are not to the regime's liking. What makes you think that stripping tax exemption from from churches will change this? Did the church that lost its exempt status in 1992 do this?The current dust up over IRS targeting conservative groups are 501(c)(4) groups, not 501(c)(3). C4 groups can, indeed form PACs and engage in other political activities. C3s cannot form or operate PACs, cannot directly support nor even endorse specific political candidates, etc. At most, a C3 organization can publish a direct comparison of candidate positions on issues. The church that had its 501(c)(3) status revoked fired the individuals responsible for the loss of their status, and reapplied 1 year later. (in short, they caved.)
To the contrary, considering some of the things I have seen happen over the last 6 years, I would say a bit of a revival of the concept of individual liberty and a reassertion of individual rights under the Constitution has happened.To be sure, the .gov agencies have been losing more cases than they have been winning when it comes to challenging the manner .gov can regulate 1st Amendment activities, and even 2nd Amendment activities. However, there is the additional factor that the number of cases coming before the courts has taken a drastic upturn because .gov under the current tyrant-in-chief have been tramping on our constitutional protection every time we blink. Not to mention that when they DO lose in court, they simply write new laws which in turn need to be challenged for their constitutionality.
Are you sure about that? Can you cite for me the relevant information from the USSC decision to support your contention?www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability†unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.â€Right there, the court is basically saying that when the government has "compelling interest" it can go ahead and place limits on our rights. So much for "Congress shall make no law..." because if the government has "compelling interest", then they CAN make whatever law they desire. The reason given that the government did not prove compelling interest is summed up that there are already numerous exemptions in place, thus proving that government enforcement of the ACA birth control mandate is not the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."
The current dust up over IRS targeting conservative groups are 501(c)(4) groups, not 501(c)(3). C4 groups can, indeed form PACs and engage in other political activities. C3s cannot form or operate PACs, cannot directly support nor even endorse specific political candidates, etc. At most, a C3 organization can publish a direct comparison of candidate positions on issues.
The church that had its 501(c)(3) status revoked fired the individuals responsible for the loss of their status, and reapplied 1 year later. (in short, they caved.)
To be sure, the .gov agencies have been losing more cases than they have been winning when it comes to challenging the manner .gov can regulate 1st Amendment activities, and even 2nd Amendment activities. However, there is the additional factor that the number of cases coming before the courts has taken a drastic upturn because .gov under the current tyrant-in-chief have been tramping on our constitutional protection every time we blink. Not to mention that when they DO lose in court, they simply write new laws which in turn need to be challenged for their constitutionality.
In the introduction to the decision, SCOTUS references the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as the basis for the manner the case was decided.Right there, the court is basically saying that when the government has "compelling interest" it can go ahead and place limits on our rights. So much for "Congress shall make no law..." because if the government has "compelling interest", then they CAN make whatever law they desire. The reason given that the government did not prove compelling interest is summed up that there are already numerous exemptions in place, thus proving that government enforcement of the ACA birth control mandate is not the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."
Note that the 1st amendment is not ONCE referenced as a protection of the People's rights, but rather a law that was written which states the government CAN violate our rights if "compelling interest" is proven.
...RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,†but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them...
...The Court has entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro EspÃrita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418. And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person†under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person†includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations...
...Also flawed is the claim that RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents, none of which squarely recognized free-exercise rights for for-profit corporations...
...if RFRA’s original text were not clear enough, the RLUIPA amendment surely dispels any doubt that Congress intended to separate the definition of the phrase from that in First Amendment case law...
...the results would be absurd if RFRA, a law enacted to provide very broad protection for religious liberty, merely restored this Court’s pre-Smith decisions in ossified form and restricted RFRA claims to plaintiffs who fell within a category of plaintiffs whose claims the Court had recognized before Smith...
...HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion...