Admiral says:

People like Pastor Roger Byrd are a “dime a dozen”. No matter what you believe, you must understand that he has the right to say what he wants. I do not agree with what he says and I am smart enuf to know what he says makes no real sense. His ultimate message is to not have a president that is not a Christian (although Obama is).

You should also realize that MANY Americans will not vote for Obama on such ridiculous points such as him being black (half black actually), Him having the name Barack Obama (doesn’t sound American). Thoes same people will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman.

Now to your bottom line….

I am guessing that reading Pastor Roger Byrd’s sign must have lowered your I.Q. as you seem to spew the same hate thus making yourself no better than Pastor Roger Byrd.

“and he dares to think his opinion should count for anything?”

Yes his opinion counts to those who believe it. And being an American his opinion counts in the fact that he is free to say whatever he wants.

“If anyone should be denied the rights of citizenship in this country, it’s un-American fools like Roger Byrd.”

This sentence is so wrong I don’t know where to begin. Do you really believe that people should be denied American citizenship because they practice free speech? Or is it just that he said something that you disagree with its? I disagree with what he saing but I do not believe he has done wrong in anyway. He has the right to say what he wants. For someone to deny a persons right to free speech is un-American. So if you can get him to move away from America then you should go with him, being a hypocrite and all.

Don’t take my comments badly. I simply wish to point out your hipocrasy when you first say that he is wrong (which is your opinion of his opinion) then you say he should not be an American when being an American means that you can say what you want. There lies the hypocrisy.

And if you don’t like my grammerical, spelling, and punctuational errors then you should move to England where they speak english. I speak american. Cause I live in america. Yeeee hhaaawwwww!

:-)

Andrew says:

Admiral, you’re getting me wrong. I don’t think he shouldn’t have every citizen’s rights. But he clearly believes that a non-Christian shouldn’t have the right to hold office. My point was that if anyone should be denied that right it’s ignorant rednecks like him.

In reality, no one should be denied that, uninformed fool or not.

And I never meant to suggest that he doesn’t have the absolute right to put that sign up. He does; that’s free speech for ya and I support him unequivocally in that. But I also have the right to point out what a piece of garbage he is. ;-)

wayne says:

where i live we try and separate church from state.if one of the local churches here done that.(pardon the pun) all hell would break loose.

Leland says:

He sounds a lot like a white Rev. Wright to me.

vicki says:

Call him and tell him what you think. His number is freely available on Google, etc.
Roger J Byrd (864) 674-6843 621 Forest St, Jonesville, SC 29353

AG says:

Ah, but you give the white-trash hater too *much* credit, boy — turns out he can’t manage even to spell the insult correctly. Check the sign:

http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/south_carolina_ladies_and_gent.php

Admiral says:

I do not think I am getting you wrong. Nor do I wish to anger you or anyone by my remarks. I simply wish to show you that what you say is both hypocritical and wrong. Not wrong in saying that I support the Pastor, which I do not. But wrong in the frame of mind that just because you disagree with someone that that person should be considered un-American.

You also contradict yourself in your own statements. You said “I don’t think he shouldn’t have every citizen’s rights.”

The you completely contradict yourself by saying “My point was that if anyone should be denied that right (of citizenship)it’s ignorant rednecks like him.”

Then you contradict yourself again by saying “In reality, no one should be denied that (right of citizenship), uninformed fool or not.”

With your comments you sound just as narrow-minded as the Pastor. Don’t you see the irony? Your negative statements are just as bad as the Pastor’s. You saying he is un-American for practicing his right to free speech is the same as him saying he only wants Christian Presidents. Both statements are wrong.

ronbailey says:

Kinda hard to expect anybody to buy the whole Obama=Moslem after the whole Jeremiah Wright episode.

And the fact is, Byrd DOESN’T have the right to post that sign - I’ll bet my next paycheck that his church is tax-exempt, and therefor prohibited from political activity. If he wants to use the pulpit (or church sign) to endorse a candidate, he should be forced to pay personal property and real estate taxes like the rest of us.

Also, as an atheist, I’d like to point out just how much *better* off we’d be if we had candidates that refused to kowtow to charlatans like Wright and Byrd. I’d much prefer to see Obama distance himself from both of the goofballs.

Admiral says:

Please tell me how being a tax exempt church stops someone from practicing free speech? And if you are correct (which you are not) then please tell it to Pat Robertson and friends. I’ll expect your next paycheck in my mail. :-)

“If he wants to use the pulpit (or church sign) to endorse a candidate, he should be forced to pay personal property and real estate taxes like the rest of us.”

You are somehow equating paying taxes to a right to free speech. Lemmi set it right. ALL AMERICANS have the right to say whatever they want.

I do not pay Federal or State Taxes (yes legally). Does that mean I have some limit to my rights as an American? I am also an Atheist. And I have the humanity to understand and respect others point of view no matter what they believe.

ronbailey says:

All tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, churches included, are prohibited from endorsing candidates or participating in political campaigns. More than one sleazeball pastor has ran afoul of this law and faced prosecution.

They can certainly make a personal endorsement, but they are prohibited from using the pulpit to do so.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=155030,00.html

gnomic says:

Tax Code does not allow Churches to engage in political endorsement. If they do, they lose their tax exempt status. They can discuss issues, but they are not allowed to discuss candidates.

I’m all for taking away tax exemption from churches. I’m tired of hearing them whine about being persecuted while enjoying all sorts of special treatment and preaching hatred towards citizens they don’t like.

Treat them like any other corporation.

Admiral says:

People seem to forget the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

This includes tax law. As a tax law would be seen as interfering with the “free exercise” of that religion.

Now where people get confused is that the law for non-profit organizations 501(c)(3) states:

“Political activity. If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.”

But here is the rub for you right wingers.

Also in the law is this:

“Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023.

These include: Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group.”

A Form 1023 is the form required to be considered a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Thus making the Political Activism clause apply to them.

So, churches receive the benefit of the 501(c)(3) law without having to follow the political activism clause.

Also in the 1st Amendment is the following:

“(Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech…”

We are free to say what we want. Churches can also say what they want and are also tax exempt. So, right wingers please get over it. And if you actually consider yourself left wing and progressive then you are a hypocrite, as any smart person can disagree with what the church says and yet RESPECT their right to free speech. I think they are wrong but I also think (and the laws back me up) that they can say whatever they want and they are not un-American nor should they move away from America because their beliefs are different than mine.

Admiral says:

I am sorry to double post but I should have included the link to the law to back up my claims.. Sorry

Part of law pertaining to political activity:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e3104

Part of law exempting churches from needing to file a form 1023:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e3309

Also this statement:

Paraphrased Below…

A church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches are not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions…

That statement is located here:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e4404

Scott says:

Whether or not Pastor Byrd has the right to say whatever he pleases, it is nonetheless ignorant and a downright perpetuation of hatred and intolerance. To equate being muslim with terrorism is equivlalent to accusing Byrd of being a pedophile.

Admiral says:

I agree with you Scott. But something is missing. Barack Obama is CHRISTIAN.

Scott says:

Admiral,
I’m quite aware of that, but the implication being made by Byrd is that if he were in fact muslim (as he rather uncleverly seems to believe the name Obama suggests), then we should be predisposed to openly mistrust and discriminate against him.

“When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, “I don’t know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim ? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not.”

http://www.wyff4.com/news/15948849/detail.html

Andrew says:

Admiral: You are right and you are wrong. Lemme ’splain.

First Amendment: Pastor Byrd has the right to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants (short of slander, obviously). He can call Obama the anti-christ on his billboards. BUT, if he wants his church to be exempt from paying taxes he has to give up that right while acting as an ‘officer’ of the church.

The government can’t stop him from saying that, but it has an agreement with him: You can skip paying taxes as long as you don’t get into politics.

As for my comment “If anyone should be denied the rights of citizenship in this country, it’s un-American fools like Roger Byrd,” you’re still reading me wrong.

I don’t think anyone should be denied those rights. But if anyone was going to be denied them, it shouldn’t be non-Christians, it should be people like Byrd whose intolerance I consider blatantly at odds with American values.

Imagine if I said, “No one should get athletes’ foot, but if anyone is going to get it, they should at least be athletes.” I’m not saying that I want athletes to get the fungus, but if someone has to get it, it should be them.

Byrd should be allowed all the rights of citizens. But if advocates stripping those rights from some people, I think he should be first on that list.

[whew!] That make it clearer? And by the way, you’re not angering me at all — I love this stuff. :)

Andrew says:

Oh, and just a reminder: Comments with links tend to get held for moderation, so they make take a bit to appear. I try to do it fast, but I’m workin’ here!

Scott says:

As unfamiliar as I will admit to being with American laws of congress, is it not agreeable that the right to free speech should not be invoked as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of others? I believe that is what this is a case of. I also realize that no one here seems to be defending the beliefs of Pastor Byrd and only his right to say it. Taxes and citizenship aside, as a man who has devoted part of his life to becoming a servant of God for the supposed betterment of his community, it is my opinion that he should not have the right to spew such intolerance.

Admiral says:

First to Scott, no one doubts the Pastors ignorance.

Now to Andrew, lemmi sort this out point by point.

“Pastor Byrd has the right to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants (short of slander, obviously).”

In this statement you are confusing the right to free speech and the possibility of legal action against slander. I can freely say that Joe Blow is a Muslim terrorist who plots to destroy the world. This is free speech and NO LAW can prevent me from saying that.

Now here is your mistake. If Joe Blow finds my comments damaging to himself and feels that they are slander then he can sue me and seek damages. He must prove to a court that he was personally damaged by my remarks and if he wins then I would pay him for damaging him with what I said. This in no way prevents me from saying it again because it is free speech. This is where you make the mistake. Just because I can be sued for what I say does not prevent me in any way from saying what I want to say.

Another aspect is that opinions are “not actionable” meaning that you cannot sue someone for their opinion because it is not slander it is your opinion. Now if I made a false statement and presented it as fact then I can be freely sued. But once again there is NO LAW that prevents me from speaking freely.

I hope I made that clear.

Next:
“BUT, if he wants his church to be exempt from paying taxes he has to give up that right while acting as an ‘officer’ of the church.”

This is absolutely wrong. He as an officer of the church can say whatever he wants as a representative of the church. If this is a LAW I need to see it. Because as I said before NO LAW can prevent free speech. The tax exempt status of the church is guaranteed under the first amendment also.

Next:

“The government can’t stop him from saying that, but it has an agreement with him: You can skip paying taxes as long as you don’t get into politics.”

This is absolutely wrong. See my two points above for clarification.

Next:

“I don’t think anyone should be denied those rights. But if anyone was going to be denied them, it shouldn’t be non-Christians, it should be people like Byrd whose intolerance I consider blatantly at odds with American values.”

If you believe that Byrd’s comments are against “American Values” then you are wrong. They may be against what you consider “American Values” but those values are simply YOUR VALUES and are thus NOT representative of “American Values”. My values differ from yours no doubt but does that make me less American? No. You should not try to superimpose your beliefs and values as THE “American Values” standard. “American Values” are different for different people.

I am still not clear on your statement:

“I don’t think anyone should be denied those rights. But if anyone was going to be denied them, it shouldn’t be non-Christians, it should be people like Byrd…”

I think that I don’t understand because you contradict yourself. You say that you don’t think ANYONE should be denied those rights, then you say “But if anyone was going to be denied them,” this statement negates your first statement. So I am confused. Do you believe the first or second statement? You either believe that no one should be denied the rights or you believe that it is alright for people to be denied those rights. Which is it? If you believe the first statement then you would not have said the second as they negate each other.

Admiral says:

To Scott:

“As unfamiliar as I will admit to being with American laws of congress, is it not agreeable that the right to free speech should not be invoked as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of others?”

This is an opinion. You feel that someone can use free speech to “infringe upon the rights of others”. Please explain how this can be so.

“I also realize that no one here seems to be defending the beliefs of Pastor Byrd and only his right to say it.”

Like I said before I do not agree with what he says in any way. But he has the right to say whatever he wants.

“Taxes and citizenship aside, as a man who has devoted part of his life to becoming a servant of God for the supposed betterment of his community, it is my opinion that he should not have the right to spew such intolerance.”

This is your opinion that isn’t upheld by the Constitution and American Law. You are entitled to your opinion just as the Pastor is. I do not agree with the statement “he should not have the right to spew such intolerance” but, I still respect what you say as free speech and would not want you to leave America for what you believe nor would I consider you a bad or un-American. To do so is hypocrisy. Meaning that if one one hand i said I believe in free speech and then said I think you are un-American because you said something, makes me a hypocrite.

Scott says:

Admiral,
I do acknowledge your ability to prove that the Pastor is in fact within his legal rights to express himself. That is his choice and freedom as an American citizen. It is the implication of his remarks that infringes on others’ rights, namely the right to not be discriminated against based on religious belief. He does not explicitly state anything and claims that it is merely a “thought-provoking” statement, although it is clearly nothing more than a sad misconception. No the government does not have the right to persecute and censor Pastor Byrd, but it is tragic that through his right to express himself, his followers view of the world may become even narrower.

P.S. I am canadian, and an atheist.

Scott says:

Sorry, I realise that my previous comment may be interpreted as discriminatory towards the followers of this particular church and/or christianity in general. I did not mean to imply that their views are “narrow”, but instead that all of our perspectives are relatively so. It should be the purpose of free speech to promote an open exchange of mind-expanding ideas, not to promote the closed-minded dismissal of those whose views are different. In fact, at the root of this whole debate might be the fact that Pastor Byrd is actually infringing on the right to free speech itself, but implying that Obama’s views might no longer be worth listening to if he were in fact related to a muslim.

Admiral says:

Good to know a Canadian.

Now to your comment.

“It is the implication of his remarks that infringes on others’ rights, namely the right to not be discriminated against based on religious belief.”

The words used are: “Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?”. Your imagination is the only limit to what these word could mean. You can imply the meaning of his words until you turn blue. But here is where you make the error. You turn the words on his banner into what you think they mean. And thus you think that what you feel is the meaning of his words are discriminating against a religious belief. I do not see the connection because the connection is made in your head and is thus your opinion.

Next you apologize for saying that his views make his listeners narrow minded. And state that “all of our perspectives are relatively so (narrow minded).”

“I did not mean to imply that their views are “narrow”, but instead that all of our perspectives are relatively so.”

Then you make a narrow minded comment.

“It should be the purpose of free speech to promote an open exchange of mind-expanding ideas, not to promote the closed-minded dismissal of those whose views are different.”

Exactly how is speech free if I cannot say exactly what I want?

I also want to say that in recent news it states that he has taken down the words and replaced them. You can ponder who is more correct, the Pastor saying what he wants or the person who made him take down his words. If you disagreed with the pastor and are of low intelligence then you will no doubt see it as a victory. But a smart person sees that whoever convinced him to take the sign down is much more infringing and discriminating than his words ever were. Like I said I never agreed with his words. But, I respect the fact that he can say whatever he wants. And I would have never told him to take it down no matter what he said. Because the day I ask someone to stop saying what they want is the day I become a hypocrite because I believe in free speech.

How can a person believe in free speech and yet think that what someone says should not be said? Agree or not, it is our right to say what we want.

Scott says:

Right you are Admiral, perhaps I have let my imagination get away from me. Perhaps he meant to say that Osama is merely the evil twin, who knows.

However, this pretty much sums up my argument:

Invoking the right to free speech in order to say things that infringe upon the rights of others, and promote ignorance, intolerance, and the closed-minded dismissal of views different from your own…, this is almost identical to the definition of censorship, and is counterproductive to the ideal that free speech embodies.

I do believe that it is possible to use free speech in order to suppress the ideas of others, even if in this case it is a little indirectly. Given even the relatively small amount of influence that Pastor Byrd exerts as a respected servant of the community, he should be expected to use his freedom of speech a little more responsibly.

To accuse someone like Obama of being something that he is not just to further perpetuate the false and negative connotations that such an accusation implies, is wrong. It is at least PERCEPTIBLY (to me and no doubt to others) the Pastor’s belief that a man of the Muslim faith does not deserve to share and spread his ideas for the improvement of a democratic nation. If this is true, and IF Pastor Bryd’s statement was a little more explicit, then to arouse suspicion regarding Obama’s identity in order to hinder the effectiveness of his own freedom of speech amongst however small a group of people should NOT be within the Pastor’s rights. Yes, it is simply my OWN opinion that the message behind the sign is intended to be malicious, and I really don’t think that’s too much of a stretch when you consider he is comparing a presidential candidate to someone regarded to currently be the largest threat and enemy of the entire country. It is an exploitation of misconception, and the consequences of speaking freely are not justified in their own right.

“If you disagreed with the pastor and are of low intelligence then you will no doubt see it as a victory”

I hope you have not begun to take this personally. I would like to thank you for your opinions.

Scott says:

I’d just like to add that beyond the words contained in the sign itself, I am also taking into consideration the remarks made by Pastor Byrd in the news, part of which I posted earlier.

“In other words, is he Muslim ? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not.”

The fact that he hopes he is not Muslim provides a little insight regarding his motive, and my own extrapolation.

Admiral says:

I take nothing personal. There is no reason to take anything personally.

Let me try again to point out the flaws in your statements.

“Invoking the right to free speech in order to say things that infringe upon the rights of others, and promote ignorance, intolerance, and the closed-minded dismissal of views different from your own…”

This is your opinion. It is incorrect. Why is it incorrect? Because the laws and common sense say otherwise. You may disagree with what someone says but, you cannot stop them from saying it. Also I have never heard someone say anything that infringes on someones rights. You may feel that you are being discriminated against by what someone says but this is only in your imagination backed up by a lack of understanding that words mean nothing. For instance I can call you every name in the book and you may have hurt feelings but nothing I say can infringe on your rights. If you think I am wrong please show me actual proof.

“this is almost identical to the definition of censorship, and is counterproductive to the ideal that free speech embodies.”

So, you are saying in order to secure free speech you must prevent some people from speaking? How wrong is that?

“I do believe that it is possible to use free speech in order to suppress the ideas of others,”

This belief is incorrect. Please provide proof to back up this claim and prove me wrong.

“he should be expected to use his freedom of speech a little more responsibly.”

Says who? You? This is your opinion. I believe he can use his freedom of speech to say whatever he wants. I do not agree with his words but I have no problem with he speaking. Thats the true meaning of Free Speech.

“To accuse someone like Obama of being something that he is not just to further perpetuate the false and negative connotations that such an accusation implies, is wrong.”

This is your opinion. Not a fact.

“It is at least PERCEPTIBLY (to me and no doubt to others) the Pastor’s belief that a man of the Muslim faith does not deserve to share and spread his ideas for the improvement of a democratic nation. If this is true, and IF Pastor Bryd’s statement was a little more explicit, then to arouse suspicion regarding Obama’s identity in order to hinder the effectiveness of his own freedom of speech amongst however small a group of people should NOT be within the Pastor’s rights.”

This is wrong on two points. One, nothing anyone says can hinder someone else’s freedom of speech. So, saying that Byrds’ comment have the possibility to hinder someone else’s freedom of speech is completely wrong. Again please provide proof to me to prove me wrong. And point two, you are wrong when you say that it should NOT be in the pastors rights to practice freedom of speech. He has all the rights all Americans share. He can say whatever he wants whenever he wants no matter the size of the crowd listening. You base all of this on your disagreement to what he said. I also disagree with what he said but I hold that he has the RIGHT to say it. You believe he DOES NOT have the right to say it simply because you disagree with it.

Now to clarify a statement I made that seems to have hit a nerve with you.

“If you disagreed with the pastor and are of low intelligence then you will no doubt see it as a victory”

Because the Pastor changed the sign from words that he said to something else based on pressure would be seen by less intelligent people as a win in their favor. When in actuality it is a loss for all Americans when someone censors themselves because of pressure. Now please understand that self censorship is DIFFERENT than someone impeding on someones right of free speech.

Scott says:

I’ll keep this short and admit that a lot of my opinions are…yes, my opinions only, and not fact. Let me say that I do not believe that any one person or group of people have the right to tell others what they are allowed to say. I am for the freedom of speech and against censorship.

I also have no doubt that the law indeed states that everyone has the right to say whatever they want, whenever, wherever, and to whomever. As citizens of a free country it is a responsibility to ensure this. yes, it does come down to self-censorship, you are the only one able to control what you express and that’s the way it should be. However, those who are rightly offended by Pastor Byrd’s unnecessary comments (even ones who completely respect his right to say it) have their own right to freely voice their opinions and if he should feel pressured into CHOOSING to remove it as a result, I feel no need to defend him. it is the victory of free speech over ignorance. No government interference, no violent protest, but free speech, in the way I believe it is used best, though it should ALWAYS be used.

Admiral says:

I agree with most of your above comment. Although I disagree with the following:

“if he should feel pressured into CHOOSING to remove it as a result, I feel no need to defend him. it is the victory of free speech over ignorance.”

I have no issue with any of the above statement except the last line which is just your opinion. And wrong in the way that stopping someone from practicing free speech isn’t a victory for free speech.

I also have issue with the following:

“No government interference, no violent protest, but free speech, in the way I believe it is used best, though it should ALWAYS be used.”

You are no one to determine how best to use free speech. Free speech is plain and simple. You and anyone else in America can say whatever they want without anyone stopping them. You show hope but then go back to the belief that what you think should matter. I am not in any way trying to belittle you but how you think free speech should be applied is wrong.

Free Speech IS Free. Totally. No one can stop anyone from saying what they want when they want. No matter what you believe. No matter what anyone believes. It is just that simple.

gnomic says:

Good news - well, as much as can be found in this cesspool. This nitwit scumbag who obviously has never read the Bible, Roger Byrd, made Countdown with Keith Olbermann’s worst list tonight (4/23).

Oh, and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives churches any right not to be taxed. If they want to play in the world of politics, let them pay for the privilege like the rest of us.

And that’s my opinion.

Admiral says:

I fully agree with your above comment. But the following is wrong.

“Oh, and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives churches any right not to be taxed.”

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

“Congress shall make many laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Making a church pay tax will infringe on the free exercise clause.

But, churches are to pay payroll taxes as they do not pertain to the church itself but to the people employed therein.

Now let me be clear. There is a difference in having a church pay a tax and making the employees of the church pay payroll tax.

The reason that taxing a church is against the first amendment is that people fear that if the government could tax a church that it can have an influence in church activities and thus interfere with the churches “free exercise”.

Andrew says:

First off, asking an organization to pay taxes certainly doesn’t prevent it from exercising its right to exercise a religion any more than asking Kroger to pay tax prevents it from selling groceries.

Even so, Congress has effectively said, “If you want to be a church, and thus protected by the ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ clause and be exempt from taxes, then you have to stay out of politics. Because if you cross that line between church and state, then we can’t consider you a church anymore.”

In other words, pick a side: Church or state. Choose ’state’ and pay taxes, then you can get into politics. Choose ‘church’ and you can be tax-free. Either way you can say what you want, of course.

Admiral says:

“Congress has effectively said, “If you want to be a church, and thus protected by the ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ clause and be exempt from taxes, then you have to stay out of politics.”

Please point me to where you found this congressional quote.

Let me point to a single fact that disproves your entire claim.

Pat Robertson RAN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

He did give up his leadership of his church in order to run for president but he did not give up his connection to the church.

This is akin to Vice President Cheney’s connection to Halliburton. Although Cheney did not give up his leadership role until AFTER he was elected.

Andrew says:

“Congress has effectively said…” In other words, that’s not a quote; that’s the situation the law creates.

And what does Robertson running for president prove? Of course he can — that has nothing to do with whether the church pays taxes. If he tried campaigning at the pulpit, though, his church could lose its tax-exempt status. Just like Byrd’s.

Andrew says:

Oh, and let’s not forget this crucial bit of info: “He did give up his leadership of his church in order to run for president.”

Admiral says:

““Congress has effectively said…” In other words, that’s not a quote; that’s the situation the law creates.”

This is your opinion and not a fact. Please provide me proof that a church that is NOT a 501(c)(3) has lost and not regained its tax exempt status based on the churches political views.

Now as I stated above you may be confusing a few things. A church is automatically tax exempt per the first amendment. There is no law that can infringe on their freedom of speech or their freedom of tax exemption. Now, if a church chooses to apply to be a 501(c)(3) organization (which is not necessary) then they are subject to the political activism clause that will revoke their tax exempt status if they break the political activism clause.

You are confusing the two. Churches are naturally tax exempt. But, some churches seek to become a 501(c)(3) (why I do not know) and thus become subject to the political activism clause.

Admiral says:

“Oh, and let’s not forget this crucial bit of info: “He did give up his leadership of his church in order to run for president.””

This is a moot point as he gave up his leadership of the church but not the affiliation. In fact the mass majority of his volunteers were from his church.

He gave up his leadership in order to run for President because he had no time to do both. He gave the leadership to his son by the way.

Random Linkage » Blog Archive » Random Linkage 2008-Apr-27 Sunday Stupids says:

[...] Political messages from the church?  Need to strip that tax-free status from fucktards that do stuff like this (via Kantor’s blog) [...]

Admiral says:

ugh stupidity perpetuates….

Randy says:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Yes, a church is automatically tax-exempt. However, according to the IRS “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRS section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

To me, Byrd’s message implies an anti-Obama message that *to me* constitutes participating in a political campaign in opposition to a candidate for elective public office. Others are free to agree or disagree, but this is why I feel loss of tax exempt status is called for here.

And for the record - I have made similar, and equally meaningless, calls in the past for other religious organizations that make so solid a stance for or against a candidate or party.

And while I haven’t been able to track down reference to it, there was a church in 1992 which lost its tax exempt status for the message church leaders put out during the Clinton campaign. If I can find it, I’ll post a link here later.

Admiral says:

Yes, a church is automatically tax-exempt. However, according to the IRS “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRS section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

Yes churches are automatically tax exempt, you are correct there. But, you misunderstand something.

I’ll use your linked document to prove my point.

This is on page 3.

“Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.”

In order for anyone to be considered 501(c)(3) they must fill out and sign form 1023. Churches are AUTOMATICALLY tax exempt. And when they do not file to be a 501(c)(3) then they are not subject to what being a 501(c)(3) prohibits.

Admiral says:

I found it for you Randy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17878

Something not mentioned is that the church at the time was 501(c)(3).

Randy says:

From the same page 3:

——————————-
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

* no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
* the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns, and
————————————

To me, that says that to maintain a tax-exempt status, participation in legislation affecting activities or intervening in political campaigns is not allowed. Even for churches, this requirement holds, regardless of application for 501(c)(3) status. And I still believe that Byrd’s message is an attempt to interfere with the Obama political campaign. I’m still trying to understand why this doesn’t therefore lead to the conclusion that Byrd’s church should lose tax-exempt status. Application for 501(c)(3) status is not necessary to still fall under the no politics section of this code as I read it.

Admiral says:

You are misunderstanding the words above. Churches do not have to qualify to be tax exempt they just are. Let me attempt to break it down…

501(c)(3) has nothing to do with churches. Some are lulled into signing up to be 501(c)(3) and thus come under the jurisdiction of the IRS.

If a church does not sign up to be a 501(c)(3) then they cannot be held in violation of the political activism clause.

If your statement were true then there would be no need for a form 1023 to be filled out in order to become a 501(c)(3). Churches have the constitutional right to be tax free.

The best way to prove your point is to show me proof that a NON 501(c)(3) church lost its tax exemption due to violation of the political activism clause.

Chuck Staples says:

I took the sentence to be purposefully provacative to engender discussion. Considering the two people named, it conjures up images of racism, hatred, evilness, hope, and reconciliation.

In the forgiving eyes of the Lord, yes, these two men might be considered brothers even with their vastly different hearts.

I think we’d need to sit in the sermon to hear what this pastor has to say before we start judging. I think there’s a phrase or two about this in the Bible, to…

Admiral says:

I wouldn’t mind hearing the pastors exact reason for the sign.

Randy says:

It says churches generally qualify, but that to remain qualified, they must not get involved in politics. Explain it to me in smaller words, because I keep reading that they qualify for tax exempt status under 501(c)(3) provisions and then says there are specific requirements for keeping that status. No matter what the organization is, and no matter if it has applied for recognition as a 501(c)(3) organization or not, if it does not follow the specific rules of code 501(c)(3), it loses tax exempt status. That’s absolutely clear that those are the requirements, so you’ll have to break down your argument better for me to see it.

Byrd said something inflammatory and clearly intended to sway a political campaign (irrespective of how much he pretends that wasn’t the intent). No matter what his organization is nor whether or not it has done anything to get any specific recognition for tax exempt status, his interfering in a political campaign means the church loses tax exempt status. The code says very clearly all organizations covered by this code section must still follow a few rules, even if they don’t apply for official recognition.

Admiral says:

perhaps you are correct. and if you are then the irs isn’t doing a good job at all in revoking their tax exempt status. And we all know that the IRS does not like to collect taxes… or make people pay taxes…

i know this does not answer the questions you pose. i will answer those shortly.

Admiral says:

With extreme study I have found that we are both correct. I was wrong on the fact that churches have the right to tax exemption thru the constitution. Tax exempt status is automatically granted to churches but those churches must adhere to the 501(c)(3) prohibition of political activity. So says the law. Now the problem is. The law seems to not be enforced. Thus making me wrong factually but correct in practice and thru precedent.

Thank you Randy for being so diligent and helping me to correct my factual error. This does not however end the fact that the IRS does not take away tax exemption due to political pandering or else the 700 Club and friends would be owing the IRS much money. Perhaps they should go after them in order to continue funding the war? :-)

Randy says:

I concur about the slack nature of IRS enforcing the law. Law vs. reality of enforcement is extremely imbalanced. I think there are a lot of religious institutions that should have their tax exempt status reviewed/stripped.

Thank you for forcing me to think carefully about the issue. I really wasn’t sure I was reading the tax code correctly, and so wanted to see a simpler explanation from you in case I was really reading things incorrectly.

I *used* to work at the IRS - not in any capacity to deal with tax information - I just maintained servers. I know from working there that there are a lot of cases where the IRS under-performs its collection duties, but there *is* a real effort to improve enforcement on those who are willfully underpaying and trying to avoid their tax responsibilities while trying to reduce the impact of audits and enforcement issues on people who are trying to do honest tax preparation.