2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
ke4gde said:
It is not ambiguous when that is the almost exact definition, one who follows the teachings of the gospel (aka Christianity). This is why religion has no place in politics, if it does then the churches need to pay taxes like everyone else. However, that is probably a discussion for a different thread.
Click to expand...
Why?
Other non-profits get to endorse candidates.
Why only restrict churches?
 
DA SWO said:
Why?
Other non-profits get to endorse candidates.
Why only restrict churches?
Click to expand...
Fine, include them if necessary. However, an endorsement is much different than lobbying. If the Holy Church of the Front Sight Post wants to endorse a candidate they believe in then that is fine. Anyone can endorse a candidate. Hell, you could endorse a candidate if you so chose to. The issue arises when same church decides it wants to start lobbying to enforce their will on others. Pretty much like Christianity is trying to tell everyone who they should or should not love, abortions, birth control, you get the picture. If they want to get involved, then pay taxes like everyone else.

Religious organizations have zero place in politics if they are not paying like everyone else.
 
ke4gde said:
Fine, include them if necessary. However, an endorsement is much different than lobbying. If the Holy Church of the Front Sight Post wants to endorse a candidate they believe in then that is fine. Anyone can endorse a candidate. Hell, you could endorse a candidate if you so chose to. The issue arises when same church decides it wants to start lobbying to enforce their will on others. Pretty much like Christianity is trying to tell everyone who they should or should not love, abortions, birth control, you get the picture. If they want to get involved, then pay taxes like everyone else.

Religious organizations have zero place in politics if they are not paying like everyone else.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the fact that church tax exemption:

- Violates the Establishment Clause, treating churches differently simply because of the articles of their faith
- Provides favoritism specifically to churches vs. other charities (who have to report their income to the IRS)
- Costs the government billions of dollars in badly needed revenue in economic downturns
- Forces taxpayers to pick up religion's slack by making up the deficit in public income

Among other reasons. I'm only proving ke4gde's point here, though; this is a tangent that could fill pages of a separate thread.
 
ke4gde said:
Fine, include them if necessary. However, an endorsement is much different than lobbying. If the Holy Church of the Front Sight Post wants to endorse a candidate they believe in then that is fine. Anyone can endorse a candidate. Hell, you could endorse a candidate if you so chose to. The issue arises when same church decides it wants to start lobbying to enforce their will on others. Pretty much like Christianity is trying to tell everyone who they should or should not love, abortions, birth control, you get the picture. If they want to get involved, then pay taxes like everyone else.

Religious organizations have zero place in politics if they are not paying like everyone else.
Click to expand...

This so called church lobby you speak of hasn't really been too successful.. Sounds like the red scare of the 50s.

I vote to my wallet and don't really care about abortions, marriage, and who I can and can't love.

Not quite sure what the paying taxes thing has to do with anything.
 
DocIllinois said:
Not to mention the fact that church tax exemption:

- Violates the Establishment Clause, treating churches differently simply because of the articles of their faith
- Provides favoritism specifically to churches vs. other charities (who have to report their income to the IRS)
- Costs the government billions of dollars in badly needed revenue in economic downturns
- Forces taxpayers to pick up religion's slack by making up the deficit in public income

Among other reasons. I'm only proving ke4gde's point here, though; this is a tangent that could fill pages of a separate thread.
Click to expand...
Planned parenthood shoots $130M/year into the coffers of various politicians, why say a church contributing is bad, but other non-profits doing it is acceptable?
 
Florida173 said:
This so called church lobby you speak of hasn't really been too successful.. Sounds like the red scare of the 50s.

I vote to my wallet and don't really care about abortions, marriage, and who I can and can't love.

Not quite sure what the paying taxes thing has to do with anything.
Click to expand...
You may vote your wallet, but millions of other voters vote along religious lines. Doing what the church tells them to or risk hell fire and damnation. Which is where the intent of my statement was directed. I wouldn't dare to presume your reasons for voting the way you want to.

The church lobby is real, and one has only to look at the day's social issues to see that. What were the original justifications in the South against racial integration/slavery? Religion What are the justifications for the modern day issues of abortion, marriage equality, birth control, gun rights (which I support), and more? Religion. What are the justifications for many of the wars fought throughout history? Religion. To suggest there is no, or an ineffective church lobby is inaccurate. Right now the churches want a say in politics without having to pay the entrance fee. You pay taxes, you get a say in your government. It is that simple. Not to mention @DocIllinois points previously mentioned.

Speaking of red scare, it was that scare that was a contributing factor in the addition to "In God We Trust" and the addition of God to the Pledge of Allegiance (gotta fight those Godless commies ect..), but that is for another day. Bottom line, this is not a Christian country, this is a country that is primarily populated by Christians. Big difference.
 
Red Flag 1 said:
Prochoicers also took issue with the only good Super Bowl Commercial, the Doritos ad. Pro-choice group cries foul over Doritos commercial 'Ultrasound' | Fox News. :wall::wall:.
Click to expand...
People looking to get offended.

ke4gde said:
You may vote your wallet, but millions of other voters vote along religious lines. Doing what the church tells them to or risk hell fire and damnation. Which is where the intent of my statement was directed. I wouldn't dare to presume your reasons for voting the way you want to.

The church lobby is real, and one has only to look at the day's social issues to see that. What were the original justifications in the South against racial integration/slavery? Religion What are the justifications for the modern day issues of abortion, marriage equality, birth control, gun rights (which I support), and more? Religion. What are the justifications for many of the wars fought throughout history? Religion. To suggest there is no, or an ineffective church lobby is inaccurate. Right now the churches want a say in politics without having to pay the entrance fee. You pay taxes, you get a say in your government. It is that simple. Not to mention @DocIllinois points previously mentioned.

Speaking of red scare, it was that scare that was a contributing factor in the addition to "In God We Trust" and the addition of God to the Pledge of Allegiance (gotta fight those Godless commies ect..), but that is for another day. Bottom line, this is not a Christian country, this is a country that is primarily populated by Christians. Big difference.
Click to expand...

No different than any other lobby group.
Pro-abortion lobbies, Climate change lobbies, the NRA lobbies, wildlife refuge centers lobby, everybody lobbies
I don't see churches as any different, and I don't see why they should lose their tax status, unless you want to eliminate the non-profit tax-exempt status (which I am in favor of).
 
DA SWO said:
Planned parenthood shoots $130M/year into the coffers of various politicians, why say a church contributing is bad, but other non-profits doing it is acceptable?
Click to expand...
What's your source for this? Their FEC filings list only about $7.5M in contributions between their main PAC (which is 501(c)3 compliant) and their super PAC (501(c)4 and allowed to lobby). Planned Parenthood: Summary | OpenSecrets
 
DA SWO said:
No different than any other lobby group.
Pro-abortion lobbies, Climate change lobbies, the NRA lobbies, wildlife refuge centers lobby, everybody lobbies
I don't see churches as any different, and I don't see why they should lose their tax status, unless you want to eliminate the non-profit tax-exempt status (which I am in favor of).
Click to expand...
Sure, fair is fair. Although, what might make that pill easier to swallow is to leave non-profits that do not contribute to politics, and those that spend say no less than 90% of their income on their stated non-profit purpose. I can still see where some of them do a lot of good, but in the end if it needs to happen to get the churches to pay then let's do it. That or tell them to get out of politics. I prefer they pay their taxes though.
 
ke4gde said:
Sure, fair is fair. Although, what might make that pill easier to swallow is to leave non-profits that do not contribute to politics, and those that spend say no less than 90% of their income on their stated non-profit purpose. I can still see where some of them do a lot of good, but in the end if it needs to happen to get the churches to pay then let's do it. That or tell them to get out of politics. I prefer they pay their taxes though.
Click to expand...
I agree, not for profits still get city services that we pay for.
Either tax them, reduce the amount of tax free property, or charge per call.

Deathy McDeath said:
What's your source for this? Their FEC filings list only about $7.5M in contributions between their main PAC (which is 501(c)3 compliant) and their super PAC (501(c)4 and allowed to lobby). Planned Parenthood: Summary | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...
My mistake, misplaced the decimal.
I should have said 1.3, but looking it up it look like your numbers are better. $6Mil, even so that means the tax payers could reduce the money by that amount.
I am a little confused on the PP funding though, to me it looks like a direct deposit to them, and I wonder why they don't file via ObamaCare to get reimbursed for services.
That would take the wind out of the "defund PP sails", or am I missing something?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DA SWO said:
My mistake, misplaced the decimal.
I should have said 1.3, but looking it up it look like your numbers are better. $6Mil, even so that means the tax payers could reduce the money by that amount.
I am a little confused on the PP funding though, to me it looks like a direct deposit to them, and I wonder why they don't file via ObamaCare to get reimbursed for services.
That would take the wind out of the "defund PP sails", or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

When you say "file via Obamacare", do you mean file with personal insurance?

Funding:
In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, total revenue was US$1.3billion: non-government health services revenue was US$305million, government revenue (such as Medicaid reimbursements) was US$528million, private contributions totaled US$391million, and US$77million came from other operating revenue.[56] According to Planned Parenthood, 59% of the group's revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 15%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for about 16%, and 10% of the revenue in 2013–2014 was not spent.[56]

Planned Parenthood receives above a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).[47][56] By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions,[57] but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.[44][58]

It's Wikipedia, but whatever I don't feel like doing more research than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R.Caerbannog
Economic shifts in Central America and China
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Marauder06
"Selfie Culture"
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
AWP
AWP
Marauder06
Team Rubicon
Replies
7
Views
817
x SF med
x SF med
Blizzard
New Officers: Are We Getting Our Best and Brightest?
Replies
9
Views
927
Devildoc
Devildoc
N1TLOTL
  • Locked
I need help on my project
Replies
12
Views
1K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Back
Top