Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 How do you report somone to the IRS?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2531 Posts

Posted - 11/01/2008 :  11:20:08  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Why am I asking? I'm Canadian, but I've found an instance where it looks like Ray Comfort is trying to endorse a political candidate by posting an opinion of someone who's voting against the other guy. If you look at the right-hand sidebar he says that his ministry is a non-profit organization.

Would that post of his count? Am I over-reacting? From the looks of the comment he's gotten so far, he should already be worried about it...

I've saved the HTML page as it is, just in case he changes it in the future.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Edited by - the_ignored on 11/01/2008 11:25:38

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12578 Posts

Posted - 11/01/2008 :  12:28:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, he doesn't explicitly endorse McCain. Ray was clever in posting one persons opinion in his blog. I doubt if there is a case...

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 11/01/2008 :  20:10:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
My daughter asked me the other day what the rules were for churches that endorse ballot propositions. The Crossroads Church in Manteca, California, it seems, has on it's church sign, "Vote yes on Proposition 8" (the proposition that would exclude same-sex couples from being able to marry in California, as they are presently allowed to do).

Is it as illegal for a church to openly advocate for or against a ballot proposition, as it is for them to support a candidate? ("Illegal" isn't the precise word, but won't they lose their tax-free status?) I think so, but I Am Not A Lawyer.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 11/02/2008 :  23:05:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Are you really so threatened by dissent that you need to personally harm people who disagree with you?!

That is so messed up!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24786 Posts

Posted - 11/02/2008 :  23:25:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Mycroft

Are you really so threatened by dissent that you need to personally harm people who disagree with you?!

That is so messed up!
People accorded special privileges have special restrictions placed upon them. As is said about our Constitution, with every right comes a responsibility. People who shirk their responsibilities should not be able to enjoy the corresponding rights.

In other words, people are free to offer all the dissent they like, they just have to pay taxes like everyone else. If you don't want to pay taxes, then your dissent is limited.

And "limited" is the key word. "Vote for McCain" is out. "Think about the Bible's stance on the sanctity of all life, including the unborn, and then vote your conscience" is quite alright.

The idea that "vote for McCain" is "dissent" is what is really messed up.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2008 :  01:13:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Mycroft

Are you really so threatened by dissent that you need to personally harm people who disagree with you?!

That is so messed up!


What's messed up are bigoted fundies who use their tax-exempt church to try to change the California Constitution in order to deny gays and lesbians the rights held by others.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/03/2008 01:14:46
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4572 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2008 :  09:02:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Mycroft

Are you really so threatened by dissent that you need to personally harm people who disagree with you?!

That is so messed up!
Reporting criminals to the authorities is "harming people" now? My, what a completely backwards moral system you seem to operate on.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12578 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2008 :  09:41:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Mycroft

Are you really so threatened by dissent that you need to personally harm people who disagree with you?!

That is so messed up!


Mycroft. It's the law that a tax exempt organization must refrain from involvement in partisan politics. If Ray wants to endorse a candidate he must give up his tax exempt status.

Now you seem like a smart guy. Do you think we should allow organizations such as churches the privilege of not paying into the public fund without some strings attached? Do you think we should publicly fund (by way of allowing them to not pay taxes which shifts the burden to the tax payer) the same rights as those of us who pay taxes?

Or to put it another way, why should I pick up the tab for an organization that is promoting a candidate that I don't want? If they want to drop their tax exempt status, I don't care who they endorse. Just don't make me pay for it is all.

It's a good part of the tax exemption law. It's fair. (I would do away with all religious tax exemptions, but that's another thing.)

Dissent is fine as long as I am not required to pay for it...

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24786 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2008 :  12:06:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey, not only are religious groups exempt from taxation, they are also exempt from following anti-discrimination laws for employment.

Are they so threatened by dissent that... nevermind. It's such a dumb damn argument I can't even fake it.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  10:46:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil
Now you seem like a smart guy. Do you think we should allow organizations such as churches the privilege of not paying into the public fund without some strings attached? Do you think we should publicly fund (by way of allowing them to not pay taxes which shifts the burden to the tax payer) the same rights as those of us who pay taxes?


What role did black churches play in the civil rights movement? How sympathetic would you have been to someone or some organization trying to prosecute them or remove their tax exempt status?

Originally posted by KilOr to put it another way, why should I pick up the tab for an organization that is promoting a candidate that I don't want? If they want to drop their tax exempt status, I don't care who they endorse. Just don't make me pay for it is all.


Because government pays for a lot of things we as individuals might agree with. Citizens don't get a line-item veto.

At the same time, it will even out. Religious institutions don't agree on the issues.

Originally posted by KilIt's a good part of the tax exemption law. It's fair. (I would do away with all religious tax exemptions, but that's another thing.)


Well, if the real issue is anti-religion... <shrug>
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  10:48:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
People accorded special privileges have special restrictions placed upon them. As is said about our Constitution, with every right comes a responsibility. People who shirk their responsibilities should not be able to enjoy the corresponding rights.

In other words, people are free to offer all the dissent they like, they just have to pay taxes like everyone else. If you don't want to pay taxes, then your dissent is limited.

And "limited" is the key word. "Vote for McCain" is out. "Think about the Bible's stance on the sanctity of all life, including the unborn, and then vote your conscience" is quite alright.


What I find shocking is less the issue of tax exempt churches as it is that someone in these forums would openly talk about going out of their way to harm someone else just because they disagree with them.

There is, I believe, a grey area where it comes to political activism and religious organizations. I suspect that the person who wants to bring personal harm to this religious person would be willing to look the other way if they were in agreement on the political issue.

Originally posted by Dave W.
The idea that "vote for McCain" is "dissent" is what is really messed up.


Then your perceptions are messed up. "Dissent" means disagreement. The ignored apparently wants to harm someone because that person disagrees with him.

Originally posted by HalfMooner
What's messed up are bigoted fundies who use their tax-exempt church to try to change the California Constitution in order to deny gays and lesbians the rights held by others.


And I agree.

At the same time, if we are to respect peoples religious freedoms then we also have to respect their freedom to be inspired by their religions to hold opinions that we may disagree with.

I personally take comfort in knowing that there are also people who see their religion differently, and are moved to support gay rights. I believe that in time, this opinion will win out.

Originally posted by H. Humbert
Reporting criminals to the authorities is "harming people" now? My, what a completely backwards moral system you seem to operate on.


Yes, reporting "criminals" to the authorities is harming them. If the criminal is guilty of murder, then you would be harming him by turning him in.

But we're not talking about a murderer. We're talking about someone who disagrees with you politically.
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  11:05:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And his knowingly breaking the law.


I do not care either way; personally but there it is. Nobody is going to impair Ray's right to free expression. Nobody is even preventing to use his church resources to do so. Just that, if he wants to use his church as a political organization, he should follow the law and start paying taxes.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24786 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  11:20:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Mycroft

What I find shocking is less the issue of tax exempt churches as it is that someone in these forums would openly talk about going out of their way to harm someone else just because they disagree with them.
Every time someone says "just" in such a context, I figure they're usually blowing smoke. The fact is that campaigning from the pulpit is illegal. It's like you're saying that people being punished for breaking the laws are being punished "just because" they disagree with the police and the judicial system.
I suspect that the person who wants to bring personal harm to this religious person would be willing to look the other way if they were in agreement on the political issue.
You can suspect him of being an extraterrestrial, too, for all that your suspicions matter.
Then your perceptions are messed up. "Dissent" means disagreement. The ignored apparently wants to harm someone because that person disagrees with him.
My perceptions are messed up? Ig posted questions about where the legal line is drawn, and you're jumping to all sorts of wild-assed conclusions about his intentions.

You also wrote:
At the same time, if we are to respect peoples religious freedoms then we also have to respect their freedom to be inspired by their religions to hold opinions that we may disagree with.
And we can do that, while still making them pay their fair share of taxes. Being tax-exempt doesn't make them more or less likely to be inspired by their religion to hold any particular political opinions.
Yes, reporting "criminals" to the authorities is harming them. If the criminal is guilty of murder, then you would be harming him by turning him in.
Then I'm entirely in favor of harming criminals.
But we're not talking about a murderer. We're talking about someone who disagrees with you politically.
No, we're talking about the legality of a blog post. It looks like even questioning whether an act is legal is, to you Mycroft, tantamount to "harming" them.

Besides, even if Comfort got reported to the IRS, someone with more legal skills than anyone else here would look at the post in question, and decide whether it warranted further investigation or not. If not, how would Comfort have been "harmed?" If so, but Comfort found free from wrong-doing after a preliminary investigation, how would he have been harmed?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12578 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  13:41:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mycroft:
At the same time, it will even out. Religious institutions don't agree on the issues.

So what your saying is you don't agree with the law as it is written. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  15:12:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mycrof, are you seriously against turning in criminals if their offense is not serious enough in your opinion?

US Tax code:

...no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), 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.


Subsection (h):

In the case of an organization to which this subsection applies, exemption from taxation under subsection (a) shall be denied because a substantial part of the activities of such organization consists of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, but only if such organization normally—
(A) makes lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year, or
(B) makes grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year.


Some definitions:

The term “lobbying expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911 (d)).


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.


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).


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.


Subsection (h) only applies 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


And it gets a bit more complicated from there.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 11/05/2008 15:14:24
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2008 :  19:39:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message  Reply with Quote


So I guess I was way off base and what we got is a forum full of crusaders with a passion for unbending adherence to the letter of the law?

So you would be for turning in criminals if their crime is consensual sodomy? How about smoking marijuana? Would you feel this urgent moral imperative if your neighbor failed to report income from a garage sale to the IRS?

I call bullshit. This is about ideology. This is about intolerance of differing opinions. This is about being an asshat who wants to reach out and harm someone for holding the wrong opinion.

Or...do you all feel the same sense of moral duty about eliminating the tax exempt status of this church?

Joy Rings Out at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church

Alex Roth reports from Atlanta on Election Day.

Barack Obama's victory was greeted with shrieks of joy, hugs, dancing, waving and weeping inside one of the enduring symbols of the nation's civil rights movement: Ebenezer Baptist Church.

More than 2,000 people crammed into the the massive church, which sits across the street from its namesake, the old church where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King used to preach and is now a tourist spot.

“Yes we can!” The crowd shouted in a deafening roar as cameras flashed. “I'm so, so grateful,” a man yelled out. “God is good.”


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/04/joy-rings-out-at-atlantas-ebenezer-baptist-church/
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.02 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000