The worst 1st amendment violation to date

Again, it says what the bill will do but it never quotes the bill itself. Just their conclusion. I would like to see exactly how it is worded. What's troubling to me is that the parishioners asked for the bill after the last clergy wasted their substance on riotous living to include an apartment for his boyfriend.

Yes it would bother me if the state dictated Church finances but I haven't see the actual bill so I am not sure if it is being considered.

 

>Incorrect. Churches have a special tax exemption in the IRS code.

But do taxpayers who contribute to the church also have a special tax exemption?

 

Good read Rev, I always thought you had to have the 501(c) or you're not legally tax exempt.

Do you recall off hand the benefits of the 501(c)? You said there were other benefits but I didn't see them listed.

 

In the video clip RBell posted it said the Bishop had a boyfriend living in FL.

 

Sure, there are legal protections of individuals should the church be sued as a result of an accident on the property or misbehavior of one of the church staff. The judge would then be forced to only allow the limit of the insurance policy for damages.

 

A lot of people interpret separation of church & state as meaning that the church has no business expressing their views about the affairs of our nation, that couldn't be the furthest from the truth. I believe that churches should be able to express their views on various issues without having to worry about losing their tax exempt status.

Here in Alabama, when Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from office. Our church had a meeting about what we should do & what we could do. Our pastor was very about saying the wrong things. He didn't want our church to be classified as a PAC (Political Action Committee) by the government. I know it was for that very reason too. Its almost like that rule is in place to silence churches. If I were president, that would be one of the things I would change.

 

AMEN!

It's all happening so fast...

 

Dear rbel:

No, this bill cannot become law. We are governed by the Constitution--not by whatever whims the gangsters in power come up with. The government cannot do whatever it wants to do. This is not North Korea. Our Constitution protects us from this insanity. This bill would be considered unconstitutional and that's it!

 

Don't count on it.All the federal spending going on is unconstitutional. And yet here we are.

 

A possibility

rbell:

I will grant you may have a point here--but a thin one. Even the Supreme court has to obey (be guided by) the Constitution. But they can screw up at times, being human.

Since this is so, I guess you and I would have to rely on the saying: "Rules and laws are made by those who show up." Meaning, Christians have to learn to demonstrate publicly about their views with bigger crowds, etc. For too long Christians have been sitting back and acting like doormats. If you are not up to fighting for your rights then you don't deserve them.

 

Not quite

revmitchell:

I don't think it's unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money, when one considers that this is all they do anyway. One would have to show that they are spending it in an unconstitutional manner, wouldn't he?

If the gov. spent money building a church or mosque that would be unconstitutional. If it spent money building a bridge or fighting a legal war there's nothing wrong with that In fact these jokers do nothing but spend money. You have to wonder if they really know how to do anything else.

I have a good idea for some stimulus spending. For the measly price of 1 billion dollars we should send the whole pack of them (around 500 people) to New Zealand for 2 years with all expenses paid while we clean up the mess they made.

 

There is no constitutional authority to collect taxes on the federal level for these programs.

 

revmitchell:

Check again. Article 1 section 8 says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes.....and provide for the common defense........"

Where is the authority to make an Atomic bomb or create (as Eisenhower did) the interstate highway system? These things were done with the tax money Congress LEGALLY collected. If such things cannot be done with this money then what is the sense of Cogress having the power to collect taxes?

 

For pay raises.. LOL..

Sorry.. back to your debate...

 

Good point

Tinytim:

Yeah, good point. Since most of them are nothing more than political prostitutes anyway who would sell their vote to anyone who might help them keep their cushy jobs, I can see where this might be a good incentive.

I learned this recently,and I'm assuming it's true. If anyone knows for sure it's not please let me know. Here we go: If you are elected to Congress and then 2 years later lose your race for reelection--you still draw your congressional paycheck for the rest of your life.

Yes, I know this sounds insane, but I have been assured that it's true. Can anyone back this up?

 

No....no need to check again you proved my point.

 

Well, who is complaining? O'bama promised change with a difference. We have seen in recent days what he meant though many knew before hand. A Marxist through and through.