Group Challenges Different Treatment By IRS of Religious and Non-Religious Groups

170px-rembrandt_harmensz-_van_rijn_079-1The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed a lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service that raises an interesting question. The group challenges the government’s different treatment of religious and non-religious non-for-profit organizations. While tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations must file a detailed application form, fee and annual information to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status, churches and other religious organizations are exempted from the requirement to file the reports and fees. The lawsuit alleges that the added expensive and detailed paperwork is a form of discrimination against non-religious groups.

The lawsuit does raise a valid question of why such forms are not uniformly required or waived for all groups. An atheist group is presumably not treated as falling under a religious exception despite that fact that it is an alternative to such faith organizations. The lawsuit alleges that “[t]he preferential treatment provided to churches and other affiliated religious organizations constitutes an exclusive and discriminatory benefit to religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, as well as the equal protection rights required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” states the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Madison.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the IRS “from continuing to exempt churches and other affiliated religious organizations from the application and annual information filings required of all other non-profit organizations under §501(c)(3).”

Notably, the IRS Commissioner is accused of a non-enforcement policy with regards to electioneering by churches:

200px-IRS

In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the
Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
22. As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been
blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during
the presidential election year of 2012. Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky, for example, required that a
partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend
before the recent Presidential election.

What do you think?

Here is the lawsuit.

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as its Complaint against the
Defendant, Douglas Shulman, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, alleges as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation (“FFRF”), seeks a Declaration
under 28 U.S.C. §2201 that the Defendant, Douglas Shulman (“Shulman”), in his capacity as
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), has violated, continues to violate, and
will continue to violate in the future, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States by failing to enforce the electioneering restrictions of
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code against churches and religious organizations. The Defendant’s
actions also violate the Plaintiff’s Equal Protection rights.
2. Plaintiff requests the Court to enjoin the Defendant Shulman from continuing a
policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious
organizations. The Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the Defendant to authorize a high
ranking official within the IRS to approve and initiate enforcement of the restrictions of
§501(c)(3) against churches and religious organizations, including the electioneering restrictions,
as required by law.
3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 with
respect to the relief sought against the Defendant Shulman. The Court also has the authority to
issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201. The Court further has the authority to
award injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §1443 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
4. The United States has waived sovereign immunity, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§702, for
actions that seek specific relief other than money damages, as in this case.
5. Venue is appropriate in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e), where FFRF has its principal office.
6. The Plaintiff is a tax-exempt non-profit organization under §501(c)(3) of the Tax
Code, and as such, FFRF must and does abide by the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
7. The Plaintiff is a non-profit membership organization that advocates for the
separation of Church and State and educates on matters of non-theism. The Plaintiff has more
than 19,000 members, residing in every state of the United States, as well as the District of
Columbia.
8. FFRF represents and advocates on behalf of its members throughout the United
States.
9. FFRF’s membership includes individuals who are federal tax-payers who are
opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.
10. The Defendant Shulman is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,
with a principal address of 1111 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20224; the
Defendant Shulman is sued in his official capacity.
11. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits governmental preference for, endorsement of, and discrimination in favor
of religion.
12. Section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code prohibits all non-profit organizations,
including churches and other religious organizations, from intervening in political campaigns as
a condition of their tax-exempt status.
13. All organizations that are recognized as exempt from federal income tax under
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are subject to the prohibition against political campaign intervention.
14. All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, that are exempt
from federal income tax under §501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are prohibited from participating or
intervening, directly or indirectly, in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any
candidate for elective public office.
15. The restrictions of §501(c)(3) on electioneering activities do not preclude
discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates; the fact that
candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of
religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue.
16. A discussion of issues violates the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) of the
Tax Code if the discussion contains overt support for or opposition to a particular candidate.
17. Factors relevant to determining whether an advocacy communication constitutes
impermissible campaign intervention include: (a) whether the communication identifies one or
more candidates for a public office; (b) whether the communication expresses approval or
disapproval of one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions; (c) whether the communication
is delivered close in time to an election; (d) whether the statement makes reference to voting or
an election; and (e) whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue
distinguishing candidates for a given office.
18. The electioneering prohibition of §501(c)(3) applies to tax-exempt organizations,
including churches and religious organizations, and to the actions of individuals, including clergy
or other religious leaders, acting as representatives of tax-exempt organizations; the prohibition
of §501(c)(3) does not apply to the political activities of clergy or other religious leaders
undertaken in their individual capacities.
19. The Internal Revenue Service follows special procedures before commencing
inquiries about potential violations of §501(c)(3) by a church or religious organization.
20. The IRS may initiate a tax inquiry of a church or religious organization if a highranking
IRS official documents in writing the acts and circumstances, including potential
violations of the electioneering prohibition, that lead the official to reasonably believe that the
Church may have violated the requirements for tax exemption under §501(c)(3).
21. In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the
Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
22. As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been
blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during
the presidential election year of 2012. Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky, for example, required that a
partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend
before the recent Presidential election.
23. More than 1500 clergy reportedly also violated §501(c)(3) on October 7, 2012, in
a deliberate and coordinated display of noncompliance with the electioneering restrictions of
§501(c)(3), including prominent megachurches.
24. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ran blatantly partisan full-page ads in
October of 2012 in the Wisconsin State Journal; the Ministry also ran ads in the New York Times,
USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and more than a dozen national and battle ground state
newspapers before November 6, 2012. The Association also published expressly partisanship
matter on its website at http://www.billygraham.org.
25. Open and notorious violations of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) by
churches and other religious organizations have been occurring since at least 2008, with churches
recording their partisan activities and sending the evidence to the IRS.
26. The Internal Revenue Service, however, under the direction and leadership of the
Defendant Shulman, is following a policy and practice of non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) against
churches and religious organizations.
27. The IRS, under the direction of Defendant Shulman, on information and belief,
has failed even to designate an official with authority to initiate enforcement of §501(c)(3)
against churches and other religious organizations.
28. The non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against
churches and other religious organizations constitutes preferential treatment to churches and
religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,
which are required to comply with the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
29. The Defendant’s non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) as to churches and religious
organizations provides preferential treatment that is not neutrally available to other tax-exempt
organizations, including the plaintiff FFRF in this case.
30. The non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) as to churches and other religious
organizations by the IRS, under the direction of Defendant Shulman, directly benefits churches
and religious organizations, while discriminating against other non-profit organizations,
including the plaintiff FFRF, solely on the basis of religious criteria.
31. §501(c)(3), as administered by the defendant Shulman, provides preferential
treatment that is not neutral and generally applicable to all tax-exempt organizations.
32. The policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) as
to churches and religious organizations, by the Defendant Shulman, violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment.
33. The preferential treatment of churches and other religious organizations by the
Defendant results in obligations on secular non-profits, including the Plaintiff FFRF, that are not
imposed on churches, which distinction arises exclusively from the application of religious
criteria.
34. The Plaintiff is disadvantaged vis à vis churches and religious organizations by
the Defendant Shulman’s policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against
churches and other religious organizations.
35. Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit as a result of
being non-exempt from income taxation, while also being able to preferentially engage in
electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.
36. The preferential tax-exemption that churches and other religious organizations
obtain, despite noncompliance with electioneering restrictions, amounts to more than
$100,000,000,000 annually in tax-free contributions made to churches and religious
organizations in the United States.
37. The policy and practice of non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against
churches and religious organizations by the Defendant Shulman and the Internal Revenue
Service confers benefits solely on the basis of religious criteria, on the basis of which the
Plaintiff FFRF does not qualify solely because of the application of religious criteria.
38. As a result of the discriminatory administration of §501(c)(3) by the Defendant
Shulman and the IRS, the Plaintiff FFRF seeks equal treatment herein in the form of a level
playing field, including by denying such preferential treatment to churches and religious
organizations.
39. The Defendant’s policy of non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against
churches and other religious organizations has the effect each year of excluding billions of
dollars from taxation and this exclusion is available only to churches and religious organizations
with the concomitant right to also engage in electioneering activities.
40. The tax benefits preferentially provided to churches and other religious
organizations constitute an exclusive and discriminatory subsidy to religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff FFRF demands judgment against the Defendant Shulman and
the IRS as follows:
a. Declaring that the policy of the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction
of Defendant Shulman, violates the Establishment Clause and the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution by providing preferential treatment to
churches and religious organizations;
b. Enjoining the Defendant Shulman, and the Internal Revenue Service, from
continuing to allow preferential and discriminatory treatment under
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code exclusively to churches and religious
organizations;
c. Ordering the Defendant Shulman and the IRS to forthwith comply with
necessary steps to designate an IRS official legally authorized to initiate
action against churches and other religious organizations that are reasonably
believed to have violated the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3);
d. Awarding the Plaintiff its reasonable costs and disbursements of this action as
allowed by law;
e. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated this 13th day of November 2012.
BOARDMAN & CLARK LLP

Source: Raw Story

82 thoughts on “Group Challenges Different Treatment By IRS of Religious and Non-Religious Groups

  1. Interesting argument. I’ll be very interested in seeing how it plays out. Especially since the IRS is currently not enforcing rules concerning separation of church and state. The steady erosion of the Establishment Clause (and the 14th for that matter) is quite worrisome.

  2. Justice Holmes,

    I’ve traditionally been in the camp that favors the exemption on the grounds that the power to tax something is the power to destroy it, but given the gross encroachment of religious organizations upon government and a seeming pass from the IRS for engaging in partisan political activism? I’m starting to re-evaluate my position on that. As long as taxation could be done on a non-denominational manner (i.e. no preference was given to one faith over the other to avoid Lemon issues) then perhaps the time for the free ride should be over. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I am certainly considering changing my stance.

  3. What court will hear this case if it goes to trial? Does that mean that the ruling could automatically have an effect on Federal income taxes for churches(and other 501c3) across the US?

    I’m glad that these challenges are being brought and hoping that this will be heard. If nothing else, lawsuits like this could expose and define the boundaries for non-profits regarding political speech, advocacy, and taxes, especially since those old boundaries don’t seem to be respected by many of the holy and righteous anymore.

  4. Annie Laurie Gaylor who inherited this organization from her mom is very active in the Madison area. I can abide issues like this, and substantially agree w/ the complaint. However, she diminishes herself w/ a lot of petty horseshit locally. I surmise she does it just to get into the news and get publicity, following PT Barnum’s, “The only bad publicity is no publicity”. But, it’s a double edged sword. Even in ultra liberal Madison many folks who agree w/ her mission throw their hands up w/ her tactics. Maybe she just needs to hire a good PR person. But, idealogues are by nature impractical.

  5. Oh noes! Atheists expect religious and non-religious groups to be held to the same standard and the same laws! Without preferential treatment and hypocrisy, religion can’t survive!

  6. This will be an interesting case to follow. My (admittedly biased) view of the 1st amendment would suggest that the government cannot treat religious and non-religious groups differently. The more popular take (I assume) is that it can’t treat one religion differently from another but that is incomplete IMO.

  7. It does seem the IRS is following a policy of actively treating some 503(c) orgs differently than others. I see no compelling reason for them to do so.

    It’ll be interesting to see what kind of reasoning the IRS will put forward as to why they engage in this special treatment (or if they even acknowledge it as “special”).

    Yeah, this lawsuit seems to have merit, and I hope it succeeds.

  8. That’s fine. Next all non-profits need that distinction removed. After all, are they really not for profit? They raise money, they pay salaries, they buy insurance, they conduct business…pretty much they are a business. Some people agree with their mission, others do not. Yup. They are definately business’. No more tax exempt status for you!

  9. The arguments are legally interesting, but the bottom line is that this case will go nowhere for the simple reason that the government has great discretion with which it choses to enforce or not enforce its laws. Thus, if one group believes that it is being discriminated against for whatever reason, there is little recourse, and the courts will turn a blind eye, even if there may appear to be some merit to the argument. This case is akin to a taxpayer arguring that the IRS is discriminating against middle class taxpayers who owe money and have their property seized–compared with how the IRS treats billionaires like Warren Buffett–who owes the IRS more than $1 billion and hasn’t paid a dime of it for more than 10 years (let alone the mounting interest and penalties). The taxing authority has long been the black hole of government, and Justice Roberts proved that again with his approval of Obamacare as an acceptable discriminatory tax. The only way to change the differing tax treatments is to get the law itself changed.

  10. The “test” ought to be whether the organization is not for profit. To say that some organization collects money for the “greater good” is all well and good until the organization starts paying its employees to collect the money from chumps and give it out to schmucks. They need to keep their ducks in a row. If JimBob is raking in money for himself then he should be taxed for sure. Basically the IRS should assume that all churches and all not for profit charities are crooked con game organizations. Follow the money. Tax the rich! Pretty simple really. Oh, and when they pass that plate at Mass. Drop in a slug or two and see if they catch on who done it. You will know when the Priest corners you in the Confession booth. If he gives you any crap tell him to keep his paws off children. Praise the Lard on Sunday and Krisco on Monday. Pass the ammunition while you are at it.

  11. Another local aspect. Freedom From Religion has gotten favorable rulings in the past from Judge Barbara Crabb, a liberal Western District of Wisconsin Judge.. However, some have been overturned by the 7th Circuit. One fairly recent one in particular involved National Prayer Day. Gaylor was beaming w/ the favorable ruling from Crabb, but it was overturned by the 7th Circuit.

  12. I expect a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of standing, non-justiciable issue, no valid case or controversy, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and sovereign immunity of various sorts.

    If the court denies the motion to dismiss they may take some of it up to the 7th circuit on an interlocutory appeal.

  13. The most interesting part I have learnt from ,my Mormon friends ( I am an Atheist ) in Vegas where I live, is that they give checks for much larger amounts to their churches and get cash back. I am sure this practice must be very common in all religions where cash donations are a mode de jour..

    I am against any tax exempt organisation because in fact, as someone mentioned earlier they all have business models and hence ARE businesses.

    Regarding this case, I also think it is not going to go anywhere but if this Plaintiff has “the cajones” and the money, then she should keep on petitioning the same to the higher courts with the refinements needed in her case. I wish her all the best,

  14. nick spinelli – I’m from Madison, too. Annie Laurie Gaylor is a co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. She didn’t “inherit it” from her mother. Can you give some examples of local “petty horseshit?”

    Judge Crabb was correct in her ruling on the National Day of Prayer. It is unconstitutional for the President to support it. It was the Obama Administration who decided to appeal it.

    “On April 15, 2010, Judge Crabb ruled that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional as it is “an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function.” Judge Crabb also stated in her opinion, “If the government were interested only in acknowledging the role of religion in America, it could have designated a ‘National Day of Religious Freedom’ rather than promote a particular religious practice.”

  15. ‘A few years ago, while visiting or, rather, rummaging about Notre-Dame, the author of this book found, in an obscure nook of one of the towers, the following word, engraved by hand upon the wall:—
    ~ἈNΆГKH~
    These Greek capitals, black with age, and quite deeply graven in the stone, with I know not what signs peculiar to Gothic caligraphy imprinted upon their forms and upon their attitudes, as though with the purpose of revealing that it had been a hand of the Middle Ages which had inscribed them there, and especially the fatal and melancholy meaning contained in them, struck the author deeply.
    He questioned himself; he sought to divine who could have been that soul in torment which had not been willing to quit this world without leaving this stigma of crime or unhappiness upon the brow of the ancient church.
    Afterwards, the wall was whitewashed or scraped down, I know not which, and the inscription disappeared. For it is thus that people have been in the habit of proceeding with the marvellous churches of the Middle Ages for the last two hundred years. Mutilations come to them from every quarter, from within as well as from without. The priest whitewashes them, the archdeacon scrapes them down; then the populace arrives and demolishes them.
    Thus, with the exception of the fragile memory which the author of this book here consecrates to it, there remains to-day nothing whatever of the mysterious word engraved within the gloomy tower of Notre-Dame,—nothing of the destiny which it so sadly summed up. The man who wrote that word upon the wall disappeared from the midst of the generations of man many centuries ago; the word, in its turn, has been effaced from the wall of the church; the church will, perhaps, itself soon disappear from the face of the earth.
    It is upon this word that this book is founded.
    March, 1831.’
    Sanctuary…..

    The Primary need for Church and its tax-free status is that it is one place that stands APART from the marketplace and gives hope to those whose needs are not met there….the church does not answer to the State….and there is need for this to be so ….for many many people who are so tried by the edicts and sucking greedy wind of taxes and ‘wants’ of the State (especially true now….) that without the Sanctuary and promise of their faith, they would be less than Zombies….(mayt even look like Republicans!)….

  16. jmq, Her mother ran it and then Annie took it over, six of one… Regarding petty horseshit. Vegas has the odds 500-1 we’ll agree on them being petty, but here goes. There are the numerous manger pissing matches. There are the Christmas trees on govt. property. One that really pissed me off was her going after the Salvation Army. They have a great after school program for low income and homeless kids funded by MSCR. She raised a fuss about bibles being on the premises..come on! Every Spring there are the petty graduation prayers “controversies.” I didn’t agree w/ her stance on the National Prayer Day and she eventually lost that one. As stated previously, there are lawsuits like this which I substantially support. JMQ, I’m simply not an idealogue and so much of what she does I’ll consider petty, you’ll consider it noble. We can both agree the courts decide who’s correct. You win some, you lose some. I hope she wins this one. Maybe w/ some actual big victories she can focus on what’s important. Finally, please don’t call me “This is a war on Christmas” guy. I’m not. Madison Ave. will NEVER allow any war on Christmas to succeed anyway..NEVER!

  17. Teji Malik
    1, December 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    …….
    I am against any tax exempt organisation because in fact, as someone mentioned earlier they all have business models and hence ARE businesses.
    ——————–
    No they don’t.
    No they aren’t.

    The ‘business’ of religious organizations is not (supposedly) grounded in $$$$.
    But they exist and must comport in the language of those who they are surrounded by and who they have necessary truck with…ie; when the church has a leak in the roof they must buy a new roof and pay roofers to put it on. When a non-profit roofing business does business, they must put on roofs and charge $$$ to meet their financial obligations of goods and services….and they can do funny things like give $$$$ to the State to support certain policies and parties etc….

    Religion is about belief and faith and humanity…and a whole lot of other things…they are also required to be a-political, non-political, to refrain from taking political stance….BECAUSE they are not part of the State….if they were part of the secular State…then your arguments would be correct.

    A church that argues for or against a particular political party rather than by simply educating on the facts of the issues of the day risks losing their non-profit status.

  18. The FFRF currently has 3 cases pending against the IRS/US. The oldest, challenging IRC 107, the law that allows ONLY “ministers” all the income tax free income they can get as long as they spend it on housing, is, in my opinion, the most meritorious and has already made history. If not resolved earlier (i.e., summary judgment), trial is scheduled for January 2014. A final resolution judicially, however, is years away.

    In conjunction with that case, I have taken advantage of the Obama White House’s program that allows for the petitioning of the Administration for action on causes. A response is promised to petitions garnering 25,000 signatures within 30 days.

    The direct link to the petition asking Obama to request that Congress repeal IRC 107 is:

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

  19. Some organizations (I’ll use this more generic term as I agree with much of Woosty’s position) are as Woosty describes as being “not part of the state”, a clear acknowledgement of the seperation of Church and State. Those organizations such as churches, synagogs, mosques, seminaries, missions, have as their primary purpose to teach and preach and propagate their faith. As Woosty noted they have non-profit status. They are also exempt from many standard and federally enfoced business and labor practices. They can discriminate in their hiring so that they can legally hire only people only of their faith. I believe they’re also exempt from minimum wages laws and some others. I have no problem with having this status as long as they restrict their activities to those “not part of the State”, i.e. getting involved in secular elections. They are also exempted from some aspects of ObamaCare.

    Organizations associated with religious-based groups though not confing or even invloved in the activities of education or the promotion of the faith do not or should not have the same religious tax exempt status. These might include hospitals, nursing homes, colleges and universities. These organizations are truly business enterprises. They should not be getting the religious exemption. They are required to follow all the same non-discriminatory hiring and emplyment rules, regulations, guidlines and laws that govern General Motors. Some business organizations as described in my second paragraph have sought to be exempted from the Obamacare provision regarding contraception. Since these organizations ARE part of the state, they MUST be compelled to comply with ALL the provisions of Obamacare as they are bound by ALL the provisions of fair labor practices.

    One last thought. It is outrageous that our secular government spends even one nickel on faith-based programs which proselytize their faith in order for a person to get rehab let alone have a federal; office to handle such matters.

  20. Woosty’s still a Cat
    1, December 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    “Religion is about belief and faith and humanity……”

    Belief and faith when used in the religious connotations show the absence of objective reality(Truth). We do not need any belief nor faith for the Sun outside, for example. As far as humanity is concerned, it has had a destructive effect on it. History is its proof.

    “and a whole lot of other things”

    What whole lot of other things? Please elaborate. I hope a whole the other things do not include spending money against Prop. 8 in CA.

    “they are also required to be a-political, non-political, to refrain from taking political stance….BECAUSE they are not part of the State….if they were part of the secular State…then your arguments would be correct.”

    Yes, they are but they do not PRACTICE what they “PREACH”.

    “A church that argues for or against a particular political party rather than by simply educating on the facts of the issues of the day risks losing their non-profit status.”

    Thanks for proving my point. Their business model is based on the so called ” Family Values”. ( Ask the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich who changed his denominations more often than his condoms if he can get it up). They all have a political “wide stance” of some sort. Denying the facts is what religions want: to believe and have faith in.

  21. While I agree that some non-profits are necessary many non-profits are simply an excuse to avoid taxes, e.g. like the NFL or the NCAA.

    As to selective enforcement of the laws of this land that is already occuring whether it’s the IRS with tax code or INS on immigration.

  22. My, my, this does seem to be a defining issue for many here.
    Congratulations Professor on at least two winners today, the other being Scientology criminalization by Belgium.

    Many one-eyed and even blind arguements advanced, thus all can now feel insulted if they need someone to vent on. Always to be of service a certain person said.

    A few specific comments in random disorder:

    —–Woosty, you advance your usual message, but unfortunately Í can not join you as I view religion as a service provider dispensing propaganda which does no societal good, only evil. The current suit shows its evil political face.
    Preaching the golden rule and advocating candidates who would deny “public support to the needs of the poor” is nothing to be respected.
    Yes, it was accorded sanctuary status then. Does it function as such today?
    Yes, for political paid advertisers. Wonder how much Billy Graham got from certain sources?
    ___________________

    Generally, I would add that no one mentioned directly the use of church organizations for laundering of politically motivated contributions and as an tax exempt one to boot, in acting in violation of the Constitution. The courts should not turn a blind eye to this, that is unless they are scared of reprisal from religious organizations. The Sct is sensitive, you know.
    ____________________

    —–NickS, please address the issue, not the merits or previous deeds of the messenger. Thanks otherwise for daring to question the holy roller defenders of the constitution. I am biased perhaps in my favoring them for the service they provide me.

    —–Dredd, you have prescient powers or you are time-traveling or a good lawyer or judge. Which?

    —–MichaelB, BINGO what kind of drone do you use?

    —–Blind Faithiness. Concisely put. Agreed.

    Thanks to all for loan of the channel. If I have been wrong or dominated unfairly, then that is the world of FauxNews we live in. Even they enjoy the constitutional freedom to lie. That share we all, with the reservation of the 47 percenters who don’t have energy after their week’s labors, be it in filling out of welfare forms or slaving at Walmarts. They deserve the “citizen salary” being discussed now in Sweden. Has it been there in the USA.
    Social innovations are hopefully like evolution, only the fittest survive.

    Obviously, greed as a basic genetic factor has high or at least persistent good fitness value.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL, AND I MEAN ALL

    Looking forward to one here. I will not be able to hold out until 12 midnight your time, 6 AM here.

  23. RLBaty,

    Special thanks from one who is always craving action, action, action!
    Informative, actionable, and rewarding via the pleasure centers of the brain as Dredd would say.

    Hope you get many votes from here. And that their efforts are not exhausted by that. The goal is not reached yet.

  24. Thanks, “idealist707″. I hope so as well. It’s been a slow start, and I am hopeful that one or more of my outreach efforts will spark a spike in participation. Did I mention that the direct link to the petition is:
    http://wh.gov/QQOh

  25. If you are a religion, you must keep your religion out of politcs or you should lose your tax exempt status. The IRS needs to start following the law.

  26. Not to criticise but the timing could have been better. Although Christianity has taken over the winter solstice observance and is a good opportunity to bring up the petition, it is the time of year when all are stressed, secular or not, and few have time for anything but year end crisis at work and family expectations.

    Your best hope will be a counter-petition from the religious, well-organized and herded as usual.

    Or try Facebook and twitter.

    Or later again simply. There are no limits I hope on repeat petitions.

    I repeat your words here:
    “Did I mention that the direct link to the petition is:”
    http://wh.gov/QQOh

  27. Rafflaw,

    Good work.

    Let me add: “and off the tax burden borne by the secular taxpayers for their exemption from taxes.”

    Thanks for this year’s blogs from you and your nun tales from school. ;-)

  28. Idealist707,

    I suppose another petition could be filed later. The case is going to be around a long time.

    Maybe the next one could be initiated by Annie Gaylor. It might be more effective in rallying the FFRF 19,000 members. I think they are staying away because they don’t like me on a personal level.

    I’ve been doing what I can, where ever I can to promote it. Many theists, like me, should be supporting the effort, but I got no real influence.

    When Annie filed her first IRC 107 challenge, the Pacific Justice Institute filed to intervene for the preachers before the week was out. This time around, despite pledging to do the same, the PJI has not showed up and no one else has showed up to try and help the Government defeat the FFRF effort. Interesting legal/political strategy! Just what is the “preacher lobby” up to?

    Forbes has been posting some columns addressing the petition, and the FFRF even notes one of those columns on its “FFRF in the news” webpage.

    I may have forgotten to provide the direct link to the petition. :o)

    Here it is:

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

  29. Here’s the link to the FFRF website reference to the Forbes article dealing with the petition:

    http://ffrf.org/news/media

    It’s still the headliner on that page.

    I would have thought that would have prompted a bigger response from the FFRF membership. The FFRF could surely do more to promote participation on the part of its members.

    Annie Gaylor, put out the call and get the FFRF membership to start signing up en masse at:

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

  30. idealist707 1, December 31, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    ….
    —–Dredd, you have prescient powers or you are time-traveling or a good lawyer or judge. Which?
    =============================================
    Which pays the most?

  31. Dredd,

    I’d say the first two. Least effort, I assume, and max payout without opposition, that is until the finance folks get wind of you.

    Lawyers drink themselves to death, and judges die of autogenic cancer from hatred of mankind. Cops are too dumb to do the latter.

    I’m burning up with self-praise tonight. ;-)

  32. rlbaty,

    You make a good case and are well-informed. But perhaps not the conformist that are liked by the FFRF group. Sounds like a sect or cult.
    It has a leader and not a board, I presume. Always a bad sign.

    Keep us informed. I will save the link to see how it goes.
    Not much help comes from here as I know of, so hope your banner headlines help also.

    BTW, did you mention a locale for FFRF?

  33. Idealist707,

    I am a little surprised that you do not exhibit being more informed regarding the FFRF.

    I suspect Jonathan Turley knows them a lot better than I do.

    They are based in Madison, WI and do have a board; even though it might be thought of as being the personal cause of the Gaylor girls.

    They are currently pursuing a substantial physical plant expansion to accommodate their employment growth. I think they also have quite a “war chest” to finance their activities, with the support of 19,000 + members.

    I got the link to the coverage from Turley on this blog from a posting on the FFRF website.

    I’ve worked very cordially with the FFRF management over the last several years on the IRC 107 issue. I even had a telephone interview with Annie and Dan that was broadcast on their FreeThought Radio on October 31, 2009. That program is still available on the FFRF website.

    I appreciate your support and hope that some of the readers here, theist or atheist will see the propriety of the challenge to IRC 107, particularly in these times where tax reform, the Constitution, and God are everywhere being talked about in political circles.

    Here’s that direct link again to the petition:

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

  34. idealist707 1, December 31, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Dredd,

    I’d say the first two. Least effort, I assume, and max payout without opposition, that is until the finance folks get wind of you.

    Lawyers drink themselves to death, and judges die of autogenic cancer from hatred of mankind. Cops are too dumb to do the latter.

    I’m burning up with self-praise tonight. ;-)
    =================================================
    Yeah well, take it to some hottie in your fjord and burn baby burn baby … do you guyz do chevies too? Love and peace! ;) Happy More Champagne! ;)

  35. rlbaty,

    then I misunderstood your statement in re the Gaylor daughter and your relationship with her. ´Glad you get support there.
    What else do you do for kicks. ;-)

    My claim to fame here is to being the most poorly informed poorly arguing commenter here. For who the other famous ones are; keep watching JTs.

    So when I say: “Never heard of it.” everybody sighs or groans.
    Self irony is also my schtick. (My yiddish is poor too).

  36. Idealist707,

    I didn’t know we had so much in common. I thought I was pretty competitive in being uneducated and uninformed; but I do have two or three hobbies.

    My other big hobby is squabbling with young-earth creation-science promoters.

    I don’t do much, but I would like to think that what little I do I do very well, and that’s one big reason I can no longer entice adversaries to openly, honestly, come out, come clean and chat with me about matters of mutual interest.

    I try to keep it simple.

  37. Idealist707,

    No waste.

    You are one of the few who have patronized me in my efforts.

    I’ll take it for what it’s worth and give you the thanks.

    Maybe Jonathan will be tempted by my efforts and give the cause a little more, high-level attention that it deserves.

    I’m available for consultation should some serious “players” begin to address the issues and think I may have somewhat to offer to the conversation.

  38. Idealist707: “and off the tax burden borne by the secular taxpayers for their exemption from taxes.” Except this country, USA, is roughly 90% religious, about 85% of that Christian (an engineer’s first estimate). Where you live the numbers are quite different. Ultimately, we pay taxes as a communal effort, I certainly wouldn’t want religionists saying their taxes shouldn’t go for anything they deem secular (there’s a buried joke there).

    My take is the same as Gene H.’s: the power to tax is the power to destroy, along with that pesky “Congress shall make no law” which would include tax law. The encroachment issues he may have I see as overblown, given past history of religion in US politics (on both sides of the false dichotomy). The trend line is generally positive, just as it is with the 14th since ’24. Encroachment is in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th by “war on terror”, as well ignoring the 9th and 10th (incorporation affects the latter) nearly whole cloth. We have enough exclusions to the 4th that I wonder why the fiction of even “they meant well”. But then most Americans think “the press” means journalists, and have no idea of the underlying importance of the 3rd. I actually got all this in elementary school (a salient opening :>) in CA. Couldn’t graduate in my district without knowing the Bill of Rights.

  39. Belief and faith when used in the religious connotations show the absence of objective reality(Truth). We do not need any belief nor faith for the Sun outside, for example. As far as humanity is concerned, it has had a destructive effect on it. History is its proof.~ Teji Malik
    1, December 31, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    ———————-

    You are not the be all and end all of judgement of the Objective Truth ;)
    When you say “We do not need…..” I hope you are not speaking for me, and who are you speaking for and with what given authority?, ’cause….ahem, yah I don’t think so…..
    There has been at least as much construction through religious communities as destruction (and I can recall stories of Jews hidden by the Sisters in the European Countryside from the Nazi Orcs…and yes, there is even a member of my church who survived in that way…)….and often, it is the religious communities that were, historically, the most grievously targeted and destroyed by the marauding State, as not…..

    Id, not all religions are sell outs and /or batshiit crazy…..

  40. Woosty’s still a Cat
    1, December 31, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    “You are not the be all and end all of judgement of the Objective Truth ;)
    When you say “We do not need…..” I hope you are not speaking for me, and who are you speaking for and with what given authority?, ’cause….ahem, yah I don’t think so…..”

    Oh, it seems I have it a nerve somewhere.:-). Objective Reality is for all humankind with or without any belief system,yourself included. You seem confused between the Subjective TruthS on which the religions are based on with the Objective one. It happens. Common sense is not a given authority but cultivated. Did you check the Moon tonight, on the last day of the year Objectively or just had a belief and faith about it? :-)

    “There has been at least as much construction through religious communities as destruction (and I can recall stories of Jews hidden by the Sisters in the European Countryside from the Nazi Orcs…and yes, there is even a member of my church who survived in that way…)….and often, it is the religious communities that were, historically, the most grievously targeted and destroyed by the marauding State, as not…..

    Id, not all religions are sell outs and /or batshiit crazy…”

    The history is the proof of the destruction and mind controls by the religions. Your denial does not turn the Subjective into the Objective. Priests in the long frocks is just one example out of many and let’s not shove under the carpet the Crusades. We may trip on it.:-)

    Your Church? hmmmm.

    Happy New Year. I hope, 2013 is better than the years before for you all.

  41. It is a compelling argument. I’ve a feeling it might make its way to the SCOTUS. Hopefully it will. It could be somewhat of a landmark case if it does.

  42. Darren,

    My opinion, as previously stated, is that the latest case and the one before it have more public relations value for the FFRF than legal merit.

    The FFRF got its experience taking on the IRS with its challenge to IRC 107 and now has expanded its experience with the two latest, less legal meritorious endeavors.

    I think it’s the IRC 107 case that has the greatest prospects of making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, if Congress and the President don’t act and if the FFRF keeps its interest. It’s already set some legal history on the “standing” issue which will, no doubt, be part of any appeal by the Government.

    Hopefully, Turley, et al, will give it some serious consideration in this new year.

    Here’s the direct link to the related White House sponsored petition on the issue.

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

    And don’t forget, Senator Grassley’s commission took note of the problems with IRC 107 but refused to act; instead out-sourcing the issues to Grassley’s friends in the religious community. No telling when they might come back with their recommendations.

  43. Ariel,

    Can you remind me of a tax burden from the secular side which burdens unfairly the religioun?
    I find your figures on the degree of redigiousity doubtful, even as estimates.

  44. Woosty, keep your soul as it seems to function well. Abandon all hope those who enter a church. Irony and seriously. Did I say batshit and sellouts. Hardly, batshit for religions, and sellouts am not familiar enough to use. Keep up your posts, videos and icons. Marvelous, even if cranky at times. That should be allowed to all here.

    No, I think that I have made the radical case (reallly a rehash of Higgins et al) that religion teaches nonsense based on miraculous happenings, teaches people to be followers not thinkers, and presumes to be the only way to God or being saved in some cases. Balderdash all.

    My morals are mine. My guidelines to a worthy life are mine.
    And the Golden Rule was found by man, long before humanity.
    No church or religion has a monopoly on charity, love, etc. anymore than I have. Nor do I seek followers to support me or my movement.
    But churchs wish us to pay its way with tax exemption. It need the common support of our infrastructure, etc just as we secular one do. But it does not contribute. How is that fair?

    Enough preaching from me.
    Happy New Year.

  45. Idealist707,

    I just checked over there, and the “Corrections” section appear to ONLY be for corrections, no ideas for a blog.

    Did I miss something?

    If there is a place here for making suggestions for a stand alone blog regarding the FFRF IRC 107 Challenge, can you be more specific?

  46. Here’s a bit of trivia for those here who may have a continuing interest in the FFRF IRC 107 Challenge pending in federal district court; the 1st of the 3 cases being commonly referenced in news reports these days.

    Paragraph #38 from the FFRF Complaint (excerpts):

    > 38.
    >
    > The intricacy of the religious questions
    > arising under §107 create entanglement
    > between the government and religion;
    > difficult determinations must be made,
    > for example, as to whether an organization
    > constitutes an integral agency of a church;
    > the IRS has consistently ruled that
    > ordained ministers…at schools that are
    > “integrally” related to churches are
    > performing services within the exercise
    > of a ministry, no matter what they teach;
    > …even basketball coaches…qualify for
    > the benefits of §107 if they are
    > ordained as ministers.

    Compare to my petition explanation (excerpt):

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

    > The IRS has extended the benefits to
    > employees of many private, non-church
    > organizations such as the basketball
    > coach at Pepperdine University.

    Coincidence?

    Maybe someone at the FFRF will explain that historical connection one of these days.

    That administrative extension was courtesy of George H.W. Bush and Omar Burleson who put the squeeze on the IRS back in the Nixon years and as agents of some of their Texas constituents who were coming under fire from the IRS. It’s now been exploited more and more over more than 40 years.

  47. rlbaty,

    you needed better instructions than I gave. The text is misleading.
    Suggestions are welcome.

    But they are made at the BOTTOM of the pile, so hope your net and computer are fast. There is a lot to scool by.

    Don’t expect a reply from JT or GBs, seldom seen by me at least. Patience. If no results work at it in the best way you deem.

  48. Idealist707,

    OK, I took your word for it and added a recommendation on the “Corrections” page.

    Here’s that IRC 107 petition page again for ready reference:

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

    But wait, I’ve now set up a second petition after giving up on Kent Hovind’s followers to do so. Wouldn’t you like to see the Obama administration address the alleged political imprisonment of Kent Hovind? Here’s the link to that petition:

    http://wh.gov/U07b

  49. rlblaty,

    I fail from your petition or from Wikipedia to see any motives for political steered injustice in his case.

    He was trying to make a buck, broke fed law and got time for it.

    His theory is full of BS, confutable BS.::::3 weeks to create the Grand Canyon, that the weak powers of polar magnetism could counter the kinetic energy of the meteor and concentrate remnants to the polar regions where they neatly fell, that dinosaurs lived at the same time as human. WTF would humans lived on then————Completely ignorant blather.

    You hopefully notice that I don’t take the Bible seriously. Do you?

  50. Idealist707,

    Yeah, a lot of people kinda think that way about Kent and his notions.

    Alas, HE CLAIMS to be a “political prisoner” and not a common tax cheat.

    For all his years of whining about his current predicament, I think it would be neat if the Obama administration would address his case; maybe some time around April 15, 2013.

  51. Here’s a link to a petition to the President as sponsored by his supporters on a private website:

    http://freehovind.com/petition/view

    It gives more details from their perspective.

    The White House sponsored petitions, if you haven’t noticed, are very restrictive as to space limitations both as to the initial request and the following explanatory details. In both my White House sponsored petitions I just about used every space allowed.

  52. My morals are mine. My guidelines to a worthy life are mine.
    And the Golden Rule was found by man, long before humanity.
    No church or religion has a monopoly on charity, love, etc. anymore than I have. Nor do I seek followers to support me or my movement.
    But churchs wish us to pay its way with tax exemption. It need the common support of our infrastructure, etc just as we secular one do. But it does not contribute. How is that fair? ~Id
    ——————————-
    Dear Id, if not for the Church, you would be owned by the State, with no room for doubt. It is the possibility of the Church to live alongside the State that gives the possibility of a life – full. Government, the State, has morphed from a creation of the people for their edification and protection and possibilty of fullfillment to a thing that seemingly has as its goal, the foundational edict to control and exploit them….hence the dysfunction in Washington, the bloated Military whose weapons ake so many in Washington rich whilst sucking the lifeblood from those who are now choked under its so called protections. Please, my soul is not yours to either take or give….
    And FYI, the Church is Free From the State….and so you have freedom of Religion, and that includes freedom FROM Religion as well. YOU do not have to partake but forcing the Church to it’s knees weakens the freedom of the people and does indeed weaken the foundation of the State.

    The ridiculous moaning and groaning about tax exemption blah blah blah is nothing more than poking a dog with a stick to hide something else, perhaps of a more secular profit based motive?

  53. Woosty,

    What a charming Woosty special. I am honored, honestly.

    Take away the first two sentences and the following we can agree on.
    And I do agree that putting the church at the mercies of arbitrarily and politically controlled taxation burden might be going too far——although that is what the church endures now by seeking and receiving 5001c3 exemption.

    The church does render unto Caesar. I won’t pull out the long list of reasons why there are and should not be churchs. We remember them all I believe.

    Let us return to 501c3 status., It is guarded by restrictions from Caesar.
    The church ignores these: it functions politically to selected candidates advantage/disadvantage. It functions as a launderer of political monies, and a conduit for initiation and distribution of political propaganda.
    All of which are forbidden by the State. On forfeit of 501 protection, I presume, as punishment. Perhaps retroactively if a proper investigation is done.

    So who are the violators here? The church or those calling for rigorous enforcement?

    As for science fiction movies: I prefer document films which show chimps showing altrism, a trait not commonly seen in them in their world.
    The one I’m thinking of, shows a mother ape, with babe in arms, pleading with hand gestures for loan of the nutcracking stone from the huge male owner.
    He left it and turned away. She cracked her nuts.

    If you believe genesis, then discussing the whens and hows of the Golden Rule, in all its versions, is a fruitless task. Accdg to the Bible, man was created fixed and immutable to change by God. And evolution is a blasphemy, if that is the right word.

    And a personal happy new year to you and your cats. Keep on fighting our oppression and for respect for nature around us.

  54. ” She cracked her nuts.” :)
    that mayt be my favorite line in any post here ever ….

    “Let us return to 501c3 status., It is guarded by restrictions from Caesar.
    The church ignores these: it functions politically to selected candidates advantage/disadvantage. It functions as a launderer of political monies, and a conduit for initiation and distribution of political propaganda.” ~ Id

    I disagree and where’s your proof?

    Firstly, in the USA, there is no ‘Church’ per se…..there is a freedom of religion and a number of thereby sanctified by the State Churches. There is an understanding that ‘Church’ functions separate to but not completely Independant of the State. There are most probably sub-contexts of that statement ie; ‘this or that particular Church was found to be operating outside of the understanding of the law thereby endangering thier tax-exempted status.’ Just like non-Church non-profit groups whose functions may appear similiar to Churches but who are not products of religious charter…and whose rules are also different, and who may also fall outside the rules and endanger their tax status….

    to simplify,

    nosiree bud, the Church I attend does not do those things and also the majority of Churches don’t either….

  55. Woosty,

    Thanks for the laugh. Seeking brevity can leave something unclear, but a good laugh is enjoyed. Just my kind of humor.

    I have not stats, only headlines and articles. But where are yours to prove that most churches don’t. And if you have proof, does that excuse the churches that DO, and thus should forfeit their tax exemption according to law?

    A constitutional point or two: My knowledge increases here hopefully.

    1. “Congress shall make no law…….” Congress or the State does not sanctify churches or religions. It grants them full freedom to practice within the constraints of the !aw except for forbidden practices: ie human sacrifice, literal cannibalism, multiple wives, pedophilic practices, etc.

    The law however ensnared us all and the churches too by using its interstate commerce regulation power to justify taxation, and thereafter taxation laws to use arbitrarily

    So in view of the latter uses/abuses of the taxation power, there are greater beasts to slay than church exemptions. Although it does sully their religions in my eyes. But who am I, whích we all can say.

  56. of all the different religions that are attended, they are great speakers. nobody sees it coming. as an example, no church has given GOD anything, and churches tell you that I am the antichrist, while the congresses of the world are telling you they will fix something, they go to see their own religions…, and speak against GOD by silence.

    If GOD created man, then what will the religions, and the IRS tell GOD when they die. by what authority, does any religion have, that PROVES anybody goes to heaven. the clergy used to preach, it is easier for a camel to fly through the eye of a needle than it is for man to get into get into the Kingdom Of God. this is the case, the religions are the ones that are deceiving…

    what authority does the irs have over GOD, when it is written that you have the chosen ones here who will set things rite. so the screw the national day of prayer. you’re supposed to pray every day! of all the people that died in the last year can you give one name, of one that got into HEAVEN, while the population is increasing by over 70,000,000 a year.

    did congress give you another band-aid? do they go to any religious ceremonies that are against GOD? after all they have given ME Nothing as their churches tell them in their ‘harming weighs. I said that all religious institutions will be closed so as to stop the fraud. your political leaders are digging deeper every day. that may take decades to recover from on a global level.

    knowing that JESUS was announced in arizonia in the eighties like the rumor, like it is written, and…

    …with the days it would take to explain all of the above…

    I AM going ice skating as I do, instead of telling you every time someone’s scratching their nuts. it takes to long.

    the abyss is growing faster, and faster with every birth…

  57. God or whatever you call yourself,

    A small quibble: you forgot “rich man” in getting into heaven.

    What kind of ice do you skate on? good skating. watch out for natural ice.

  58. idealist what do You call GOD?
    the rich man goes to hell for denying GOD, I skate on natural ice. do you know nature for the next ten thousand years? you seem to be rich in knowledge. does a 707 crash, and burn, like the antichrists want me to fall into.
    you do not tell theories in order to save the planet, but If I were to do every thing MYSELF I certainly wouldn’t need your dumb ass.

    it says that I will destroy the world, and save it, through a nuclear war, that you would not hear about, but…, THE BIBLE says that when the time comes to believe, but, it does not say what to believe in.

    I live on less than $615 a month for over thirteen years, how about you? you must be rich, and I know the ways that congress can’t conceive. you, they, and every church want GOD to live in shame.

    but to reflect on the past, I gave you, and every person on the planet the opportunity to repent.

    but that did not work either.

    does irreparable anarchy ring a bell? I warned you on a global level you won’t see this coming, the pope is only one of those who are forcing their mark. I have a thousand years to destroy satan and you and your family will be in hell. I Own the computer your looking at, the chair your sitting in, and the planet the holds them up. all you have to do to deny ME is to think against ME in any fashion…

    like I said, the only way that you will know for sure that I am real IS TO DIE.

    all idealistic ways will come to an end. with all those theologians out there it is extremely confusing even to the best atheist on the planet. but every religion was told to describe the five sooth stones in HEAVEN. they all GOD. they (laugh all you want to) were fired over four years ago but politicians like to use religion to get elected. look at how the world abuses religion!

    did I forget to tell you again, that all religious institutions are supposed to have been closed for over four years. so when does the 42 months start that is written? are you aN ace?

    even though it is written that I would be a Ranger, and fail at everything I did. the world has JESUS returned as I promised. but those that say that through GOD all things are possible and that they will die before they will give up their Preachiings, or leave MY property, you have to know that every time you pass by any religious institution you sinned, and that you have spoken against GOD every time you pass, just like those who are trespassing ON MY KINGDOM.

    so whenever you get up from your chairs, go look up at the stars and ask yourself, what is up there and who owns them. this universe is hanging in this huge mass of absolutely total darkness, and nothing.

    nobody knows where the hell it goes to but, the idealist wants GOD or the people to knuckle under to his, or their own personal beliefs, church, religion, politicians, or government. all christians want GOD or JESUS to come to their church so WE can watch them eat JESUS. now! that is some seriously twisted shit! while outside of the known universe you won’t even find bacteria. there is only one way to prove ME wrong. and, watch out for the natural ice.

    so laugh all you want all you good people. if your perfect nobody likes you either.

    I think somebody got fired for that.

  59. Dear God,

    Thanks for responding to me. You’ve been non-communicative in my life so far.
    You must have much to do being God and all that entails.
    So glad you find time for us here.

    And doing on 615 a month must be tough. Don’t you get better paid fot your work. Who is your employer. We here will make a complaint on your behalf.

    I guess that you have to go to the library to get internet service, the service not being cheap for a 615 a month employee.

    And it is my 5 cents you are spending through my tax contribution, I give it willingly to just avoid having to the drivel said by all the world’s misunderstanding of you.

    Your buddy,
    Devil

  60. due lea noted!

    the church will go under ground, and let the devil do their bidding.

    have you noticed that no theologian is on this site, while to the dogs the aspca is singing silent night. but your the one who blind. you actually think that I would want clergy in HEAVEN…

    there is not much to say for something that could have been done in a day.
    that is how I am destroying this country, enjoy.

  61. Idealist707, et al:

    I thought you might like a followup on the White House sponsored petition regarding IRC 107.

    After we hit the magic 150 mark yesterday, the petition went “public” and “searchable” and there has been a steady increase in numbers; with the current total over 450. About 10 days to get to 150, and then 300 added within the last 24 hours.

    Here’s the direct link to the petition:

    http://wh.gov/QQOh

    If you haven’t already done so, you might want to give consideration to signing on.

  62. Hi, Idealist 707,
    “Ariel,
    Can you remind me of a tax burden from the secular side which burdens unfairly the religioun?
    I find your figures on the degree of redigiousity doubtful, even as estimates.”

    Quakers, Mennonites, even Amish (do Amish earn enough to pay taxes?). They are all pacifist, so any dollar going to war in anyway is unfair to them if you allow them to make their own decision as to what is fair. My statement though was without fairness: “Ultimately, we pay taxes as a communal effort, I certainly wouldn’t want religionists saying their taxes shouldn’t go for anything they deem secular (there’s a buried joke there).” Fairness never entered into the equation with regard to tax burden. It’s communal.

    As for my numbers, yeah they’re probably off but I did draw them from memory of the last poll I saw. In my 20s it was 95% plus religious, with 90% plus Christian, but demographics have changed. Looking it up, 75% are definitely Christian and roughly 20% have no religious affiliation (want to make a bet if you scratch most they bleed Christian, not Shinto or Buddhist or even New Age, with the remainder likely Atheist or agnostic). For full disclaimer, I think those raised in a culture from X religion are still members of that religious culture, whether they embrace or repudiate that culture. The latter still fight in terms of that culture by the framing and by way of intellectual tradition.

    Only those in a fully separate sub-culture aren’t part of that larger culture.

    A source of confusion is considering any secular thought as meaning no religious thought. If that were the case our Founders were all secularists as they attempted to create a secular government. However, they did it from the standpoint of religious turmoil, not to create a government or society for the benefit of those secular in all aspects of life.

  63. Idealist707,

    For the sake of humility, I think I’ve met him once in my life and I’m not sure I shook his hand, by strict numbers, the USA is only 75% Christian now. The time’s they are a changin’. Thank you for pushing me to look.

Comments are closed.