Beto O'Rourke's Threat Re: "Oppos{ing} Same Sex Marriage"

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The biggest risk, imo, is the more it is talked about as an option, the more it becomes normalized in people's thoughts, so there is a possibility in the future the majority will consider it a valid position to hold.

Which doesn't mean to me we should get too excited when it pops up, but staying vigilant is wise.

Yes.  I didn't mean to imply that it won't ever happen.  I think there's actually a good chance that someday churches will lose tax exempt status.  But, it won't happen because Beto O'Rourke is calling for it.  It won't even be seriously entertained until nearly all of the Democrats are non-religious and non-church-attending.  Probably still a couple decades away.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't mean to imply that it won't ever happen

I was pretty much agreeing with you and just explaining why.  

[Meadowchik]

On 10/15/2019 at 7:36 PM, Ahab said:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

You're citing IRS code, not SCOTUS or the Constitution.  

[Jake Starkey]

Let's cite it again.  That which the law can give, it often can take.

Quote

 On 10/15/2019 at 12:36 PM, Ahab said:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Calm]

Starkey, what percentage of the Church’s activity and funds do you think is used in attempting to influence legislation?

[Jake Starkey]

I don't have a clue as to amount or what percentage it amounts to, Calm, of the total.

Does anyone?

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I didn't mean to imply that it won't ever happen.  I think there's actually a good chance that someday churches will lose tax exempt status.  But, it won't happen because Beto O'Rourke is calling for it.  It won't even be seriously entertained until nearly all of the Democrats are non-religious and non-church-attending.  Probably still a couple decades away.

 

This is a Pew survey which in this case the pun seems to actually be true. 

I know I am California obsessed but in many cases, as CA goes, eventually goes the nation, for the best or worst.  A lot of the media is concentrated in LA and NYC.  I would wager that the 1% of Mormons here shown as leaning Democratic are minorities.  As far as Christian Democrats, it seems that our friends the Catholics are at this time keeping the party from sliding over the edge to the "non-religious " category unless I am reading it wrong.

Check the link for more info- I just pulled this up quickly  https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/california/party-affiliation/democrat-lean-dem/

 

Quote

 

Religious composition of democrats and Democratic leaners who are in California

• Christian56%
• ►ExpandEvangelical Protestant13%
• ►ExpandMainline Protestant7%
• ►ExpandHistorically Black Protestant4%
• Catholic28%
• ►ExpandMormon1%
• ►ExpandOrthodox Christian1%
• Jehovah's Witness< 1%
• ►ExpandOther Christian1%

 

•  

[mnn727]

On 10/16/2019 at 5:30 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Religious organizations are free to preach on political and social policies and legislation, even if they are partisan, without endangering their tax-exempt status.  At the same time, they may not preach on behalf of a particular candidate.  The LDS Church, for example, legally injects its opinions into Utah legislative proposals, and has strong influence (most state legislators are LDS).  There is nothing wrong with that, and all churches do it.

As I said; Some Black Evangelical churches push candidates and are very open about it.

[Jake Starkey]

As do white evangelical churches, Robert F. Smith.  This is not a racial political mistake, but rather a religious one.

[lightparticle]

On 10/18/2019 at 10:59 PM, rockpond said:

Yes.  I didn't mean to imply that it won't ever happen.  I think there's actually a good chance that someday churches will lose tax exempt status.  But, it won't happen because Beto O'Rourke is calling for it.  It won't even be seriously entertained until nearly all of the Democrats are non-religious and non-church-attending.  Probably still a couple decades away.

I don’t know that I would hold my breath for the requirement that all Democrats be non-religious and non church attending. That seems like a stereotype run amok. I know many democrat church members. Being a democrat doesn’t automagically make them apostate heathens. One can definitely be a member in good standing and still be a democrat that wants to end tax exempt status. One deals with spiritual standing while the other is a political issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, mnn727 said:

As I said; Some Black Evangelical churches push candidates and are very open about it.

 

8 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

As do white evangelical churches, Robert F. Smith.  This is not a racial political mistake, but rather a religious one.

As I have already said:  It is illegal for churches to preach or fundraise on behalf of particular candidates.  It is also illegal for them to oppose a particular candidate..  They may freely push policies and legislation which they see as good from their POV.  The IRS has in fact gone after some churches and church schools for inappropriate political activity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/us/irs-finds-sharp-increase-in-illegal-political-activity.html .

[Jake Starkey]

Yes, churches, evangelical or not, white or not, orthodox or not, etc., may not support or go after political candidates unless they are willing to chance the loss of their tax-exempt status.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Yes, churches, evangelical or not, white or not, orthodox or not, etc., may not support or go after political candidates.

I was always understood that churches can do this, IOW, it is not illegal, but if they do so they will lose their tax exempt status. Am I wrong?

[Jake Starkey]

Thank you, Anijen, for the reminder, and so I edited my post to agree with your post.

[rockpond]

On 10/20/2019 at 7:14 AM, lightparticle said:

I don’t know that I would hold my breath for the requirement that all Democrats be non-religious and non church attending. That seems like a stereotype run amok. I know many democrat church members. Being a democrat doesn’t automagically make them apostate heathens. One can definitely be a member in good standing and still be a democrat that wants to end tax exempt status. One deals with spiritual standing while the other is a political issue.

Either I explained myself poorly or you misread the "cause and effect" I was hypothesizing about.  Please allow me to clarify...

First, I wouldn't ever suggest that democrats are apostate heathens.  I know amazing church members who are also democrats.  And, as a libertarian, my political positions often differ with the majority of church members, while some consider me an apostate heathen - I'm not.

What I was suggesting, in light of O'Rourke's statement, is this:

1. If a law is going to be passed which removes the tax exempt status of churches, it is going to originate with the Democrat party when they hold a majority.
2. However, #1 above won't happen as long as their is still a significant portion of Democrats who identify as being affiliated with a church and/or who attend with any regularity.  I say "it won't happen" because Democrats holding office won't want to alienate a significant portion of their base and lose the following election.
3. Therefore, you'd need to reach a point where all (or nearly all) Democrats are non-religious and non-church-attending.  I'm not promoting a stereotype, there is a trend in that direction for both parties and Democrats are further along in that trend.

The Pew research also suggests that for some, their political ideology is becoming their new religion.  I think that trend will also continue.

[Jake Starkey]

rockpond, I agree with you above and would add that many on the right fit your comment "their political ideology is becoming their new religion."

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

rockpond, I agree with you above and would add that many on the right fit your comment "their political ideology is becoming their new religion."

Be that as it may, fealty to an organized religion is more apt to characterize one with a conservative than with a leftist political bent. 
 

Jusy my own impression. I can’t cite any studies or surveys at the moment. 

[Ahab]

On 10/19/2019 at 8:31 AM, Meadowchik said:

You're citing IRS code, not SCOTUS or the Constitution.  

If anyone had made a case that the IRS code s unconstitutional I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

If anyone had made a case that the IRS code s unconstitutional I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.

A number of people have tried to make such a case, and every effort has failed.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

If a law is going to be passed which removes the tax exempt status of churches, it is going to originate with the Democrat party when they hold a majority.

 

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Pew research also suggests that for some, their political ideology is becoming their new religion.  I think that trend will also continue.

There you go! Get the Democrats to remove tax exempt status from religions, then declare all political parties to be religions!  Viola!

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

... Viola!

Viola?  We've never met.  I don't know her from Eve, but I'm sure she's a lovely woman.  (Any female friend of yours must be, as far as I'm concerned!)  Is she married?  Pehaps you could mention to her that I'm single, and introduce us?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Viola?  We've never met.  I don't know her from Eve, but I'm sure she's a lovely woman.  (Any female friend of yours must be, as far as I'm concerned!)  Is she married?  Pehaps you could mention to her that I'm single, and introduce us?

Well she does have a perfect hourglass figure and she sings with a beautiful contralto voice,  but I seem to not be able to find her phone number....   

 

 

[The Nehor]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:58 AM, Ahab said:

If anyone had made a case that the IRS code s unconstitutional I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.

Some have made that argument.

The danger is not that political parties will declare themselves to be religions. The problem is that political parties could then claim the same donation standards and political donations would become tax deductible. This matters little for the average American who might give a couple hundred dollars to a candidate. However the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom decided that corporations are people and have a right to speech, specifically being able to donate large sums. Suddenly a corporation that has a choice between supporting a candidate or giving to a polio vaccination program in Africa has a harder choice. The former can buy influence but the latter has tax benefits. You change the equation and they can both buy influence and get tax benefits. Then the floodgates of corruption open even more widely.

[The Nehor]

On 10/21/2019 at 9:38 AM, Jake Starkey said:

rockpond, I agree with you above and would add that many on the right fit your comment "their political ideology is becoming their new religion."

Heaven on Earth is the promise from some. Free or cheap health care. Greatness. Tax cuts. Lower college tuition. Your jobs back. Pick your beatification.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some have made that argument.

The danger is not that political parties will declare themselves to be religions. The problem is that political parties could then claim the same donation standards and political donations would become tax deductible. This matters little for the average American who might give a couple hundred dollars to a candidate. However the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom decided that corporations are people and have a right to speech, specifically being able to donate large sums. Suddenly a corporation that has a choice between supporting a candidate or giving to a polio vaccination program in Africa has a harder choice. The former can buy influence but the latter has tax benefits. You change the equation and they can both buy influence and get tax benefits. Then the floodgates of corruption open even more widely.

That would be in violation of the IRS code:

 

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Ahab