Some of Droopy's thoughts on the Constitution

[_Droopy]

I've read the original. And yes... I do very much sympathize with the general ACLU interrpetatoin of it. In case you didn't know... the constitution gets reinterpreted all the time in the Judicial system. It can also be amended. I remain convinced that the Church's actions are in direct conflict with the spirit of seperation of church and state. I understand that you may think differently, but frankly, I don't really care about that.

The "spirit of separation of church and state" whatever you mean by that, doesn't exist in the legal document which is the U.S. Constitution. and the very idea that the founders would have, for one second, considered the official state censorship of a single preacher, or a religious denomination who spoke out and took a public position on a political issue, is, to make an understatement, historically illiterate.

We know from the Founders own writings what the establishment clause means, and its meaning has no relation to public speech by religious denominations or leaders on political issues. You may not care what I think, and that's fine, as I could care less about the judicial reinterpretations you mentioned, these being, in many cases, constitutional fabrications grounded in passing ideological fads.

[Hawkeye]

The "spirit of separation of church and state" whatever you mean by that, doesn't exist in the legal document which is the U.S. Constitution. and the very idea that the founders would have, for one second, considered the official state censorship of a single preacher, or a religious denomination who spoke out and took a public position on a political issue, is, to make an understatement, historically illiterate.

We know from the Founders own writings what the establishment clause means, and its meaning has no relation to public speech by religious denominations or leaders on political issues. You may not care what I think, and that's fine, as I could care less about the judicial reinterpretations you mentioned, these being, in many cases, constitutional fabrications grounded in passing ideological fads.

You may call it passing ideological fads. But I envision a progressive society that modifies its beliefs as social consciousness develops. Looking to the past is fine and dandy, but it should never be done at the expense of social progress. It is folly (in my view) to dogmatically insist that standards of 200+ years ago should be fixed in stone without emendation or reinterpretation; just as it is folly for anyone to dogmatically look to an archaic religious text as a standard for morality and social order in the 21st century... and worse, then impose it upon a group of people who do not share the same beliefs.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Yes, it cannot support candidates for office or use its facilities for political campaigns.

Tax laws also prohibit Churches claiming exempt status from telling their parishioners how to vote on issues as well.

Read the Constitution, and, secondly, understand it. Your statement that the Church gives up its right to involve itself in politics is correct, but only in a very narrow context. No one or no organization ever waves their right to speak out on political issues or advocate for a certain position. If so, please show me where this occurs in the Constitution.

Not a matter of Constitutional law, dingus. It's a matter of US Tax Law that has been upheld multiple times by Supreme Court.

Having to reeducate liberals over

Here we go with the idiotic "liberal" nonsense again. Worse is you even attepting to try and educate anyone on the US Constitution considering the miserable failures you had at attempting to engage just me on the topic.

But, yet again, no such "separation of church and state" exists in the constitution at all. There is the establishment clause, which prohibits the state from making any law regarding freedom of religion.

Yes, there is. It's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Dumbass. Also, if you have ever actually read the Federalist Papers like you claimed you have, you'd have noticed both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both made the issue clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to keep religion and government separate. Many other of our nation's founding fathers such as George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson made their thoughts on the matter clear in letters they wrote to their contemporaries.

But what am I saying... You probably think theyw ere a bunch of "liberals", amirite.

Moron.

This has nothing to do whatever with the subject of this thread, but only the preventing of government from the institution of a state religion or the imposition of special privileges or preferences for one sect over others.

And by allowing a church to ignore the law the government would be showing favoritism towards that religion, which would be an establishment of religion.

You would like to silence the speech of the Mormon Church because you don't like it and fear it may affect public policy.

Wouldn't mater to me if it was the Mormon Church doing it or the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Nation of Islam, or the Church of Scientology. The Law applies to all.

That's the price you pay for freedom; political speech (the primary kind of speech protected by the First Amendment) you don't want to hear and don't want to deal with.

Not a problem. If your church wishes to be a political entity instead of a religious entity then they don't need a tax exemption for being a religious organization. Go tell the Good Old Boys in SLC to look into 501(c).

I recently asked whether one could be a faithful member of the Church and at the same time be a Nazi.

And we found out that not only can they be good little National Socialists some of them were in fact party members. That worked out great for you, didn't it, Drippy.

Now it appears that, far from this, I should have perhaps asked whether faithful liberals or leftists could not be Nazis...

Wow, so not only are you accusing people who disagree with you of being "liberals", but now we're also "Nazis".

Seriously, for just one post could you try to not be full of butthurt and fail, Drippy?

[_EAllusion]

There is the establishment clause, which prohibits the state from making any law regarding freedom of religion.

That's the free exercise clause. Yeesh.

Here's James Madison on separation of Church and State:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

[_Angus McAwesome]

That's the free exercise clause. Yeesh.

I was in nhurry when I typed that, but you got the point, so who cares.

Here's James Madison on separation of Church and State:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, it cannot support candidates for office or use its facilities for political campaigns.

Tax laws also prohibit Churches claiming exempt status from telling their parishioners how to vote on issues as well.

Not a problem. If your church wishes to be a political entity instead of a religious entity then they don't need a tax exemption for being a religious organization. Go tell the Good Old Boys in SLC to look into 501(c).

The LDS Church is already and does already operate under IRC Section 501(c)(3):

501(c)(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, [b](except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)),[/b] and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

501(h)(2) DEFINITIONS. --For purposes of this subsection --



501(h)(2)(A) LOBBYING EXPENDITURES. --The term "lobbying expenditures" means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d)).



501(h)(2)(B) LOBBYING CEILING AMOUNT. --The lobbying ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the lobbying nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.



501(h)(2)(C) GRASS ROOTS EXPENDITURES. --The term "grass roots expenditures" means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d) without regard to paragraph (1)(B) thereof).



501(h)(2)(D) GRASS ROOTS CEILING AMOUNT. --The grass roots ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the grass roots nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.



501(h)(3) ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THIS SUBSECTION APPLIES. --This subsection shall apply to any organization which has elected (in such manner and at such time as the Secretary may prescribe) to have the provisions of this subsection apply to such organization and which, for the taxable year which includes the date the election is made, is described in subsection (c)(3) and --



501(h)(3)(A) is described in paragraph (4), and



501(h)(3)(B) is not a disqualified organization under paragraph (5).



501(h)(4) ORGANIZATIONS PERMITTED TO ELECT TO HAVE THIS SUBSECTION APPLY. --An organization is described in this paragraph if it is described in --



501(h)(4)(A) section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (relating to educational institutions),



501(h)(4)(B) section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii) (relating to hospitals and medical research organizations),



501(h)(4)(C) section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) (relating to organizations supporting government schools),



501(h)(4)(D) section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (relating to organizations publicly supported by charitable contributions),



501(h)(4)(E) section 509(a)(2) (relating to organizations publicly supported by admissions, sales, etc.), or



501(h)(4)(F) section 509(a)(3) (relating to organizations supporting certain types of public charities) except that for purposes of this subparagraph, section 509(a)(3) shall be applied without regard to the last sentence of section 509(a).



501(h)(5) DISQUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS. --For purposes of paragraph (3) an organization is a disqualified organization if it is --



501(h)(5)(A) described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches),



501(h)(5)(B) an integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches, or



501(h)(5)(C) a member of an affiliated group of organizations (within the meaning of section 4911(f)(2)) if one or more members of such group is described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

I do not have time to dig into all the other law referenced. Without doing so it is difficult to say if the Church activities is running into problems based on IRC Sec. 501. But a quick read certainly reveals it could be problematic.

The question really is then how much if any of the Church's tax free money is being used to influence legislations. I see nothing that says they cannot tell members how they think the individual members should vote on something. If the church is funding support of the proposition directly or using its assets and properties in more than nominal way then yes it would be a problem. My guess is the Church had tax attorneys all over this and are going to be sure they do not run into problems.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Like I said, there's ways around it. And as you said, they've probably got a small army of reptiles, er... Lawyers working on making sure they don't do anything illegal. That being said, my main point stands. This is a matter of US Tax Law and not Constitutional law.

[_Droopy]

Tax laws also prohibit Churches claiming exempt status from telling their parishioners how to vote on issues as well.

Nonsense. If true, this would be limiting the free speech of the leaders of the Church to speak out on political issues (unalienably guaranteed by the First Amendment), and hence, as per Angus' real agenda, silence their participation, as citizens, in the political life of their country.

This is what Angus really is after, and any such law is really also just a Camel's nose in the tent leading to what inevitably will come next: laws dictating what what doctrines can and cannot be preached from the pulpits within private religious organizations (can anyone here say "homosexual"?).

Make no mistake, what people like Angus are really after is the naked censorship of political speech they perceive may be effective in altering things in a manner not to their liking. Much of this is, of course, based on the judicial fiction of the "wall of separation' between church and state, which has been tactically and ideologically interpreted on the cultural Left to mean separation between religion and state, a completely different concept.

The other historical fiction driving such beliefs is the claim that the Founders intended to create a vigorously secular state, hostile to religion in the public square on principle, in which religion was relegated completely to the privates sphere. We know this to be pure nonsense due to the Founders own writings, but the educability of many modern Americans of certain philosophical persuasions on the subject is well nigh impossible.

[_Droopy]

Like I said, there's ways around it. And as you said, they've probably got a small army of reptiles, er... Lawyers working on making sure they don't do anything illegal. That being said, my main point stands. This is a matter of US Tax Law and not Constitutional law.

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the U.S. tax code, not the politician/lawyers who wrote it.

2. The entire U.S. tax code should be flung into the nearest dumpster and replaced with something constitutional in its own right.

The Church has taken strong stands on social issues since the ERA, and nothing has happened. Your claim that there is something in the tax laws prohibiting them from doing so is clearly infirm.

[Guest]

Tax laws also prohibit Churches claiming exempt status from telling their parishioners how to vote on issues as well.

Nonsense. If true, this would be limiting the free speech of the leaders of the Church to speak out on political issues (unalienably guaranteed by the First Amendment), and hence, as per Angus' real agenda, silence their participation, as citizens, in the political life of their country.

You are aware this is the established interpretation of the law, right? It follows from the justification for why Churches are allowed to be exempt from taxes at all. I think it is a poor decision, but it is what it is. As a consequence, they have to be operated exclusively for religious purposes with no significant involvement in political advocacy. The tax exemptions are for exclusive religious organizations, not politically involved Churches. If you were the former and choose to become the latter, you choose to give up your exemption.

This is what Angus really is after, and any such law is really also just a Camel's nose in the tent leading to what inevitably will come next: laws dictating what what doctrines can and cannot be preached from the pulpits within private religious organizations (can anyone here say "homosexual"?).

The Church isn't losing its free speech rights Droopy. That would be egregiously unconstitutional. A Curch can preach whatever it pleases, on politics or anything else so long as it doesn't run afoul a few narrow instances of speech not protected by the first amendment (such as planning and instructing a murder). What is happening is a Church is losing its tax exemption for political advocacy. This can be abused, of course. Taxing some and not others gives advantages. The Bush administration, funnily enough, has been notorious for going after Churches advocating liberal stances/politics, while looking the other way for more egregious conservative examples. What counts as illegitimate political advocacy has been famously vague. Heck, the difference between a non and for profit even gets sketchy. I think the appropriate solution here is to not allow tax exemptions for religious organizations or nonprofits at all. It's what is needed to prevent the government from a soft management of speech through tax incentives. Tax em all or not at all. As a libertarian, Droopy, I would only hope you agree. The LDS Church ought to be paying Uncle Sam.

We know this to be pure nonsense due to the Founders own writings, but the educability of many modern Americans of certain philosophical persuasions on the subject is well nigh impossible.

You're bluffing. Also, what you are saying is false. Founders varied on their views on separation and the establishment clause, but there is plenty to support the standard civil libertarian views on establishment jurisprudence. I'm certainly no more strict in my views on separation than Madison or Jefferson.