"Americans to religious organizations: Stay out of politics"

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you the reference. Look it up.

I have showed you that the NAACP is nothing but political. As well as the SPLC. They work together to destroy political opposition.

The NAACP has PAC groups in Washington. As I showed you. They always have had them. Why? Because they are political. PAC stands for Political Action Committee.

In other words, according to you now, the Church can have a PAC in Washington and campaign against a candidate they don't like. Just like the NAACP did when they were 501c3. As long as they don't 'endorse' a candidate. Right?

Hey, I'm all for it, as you are.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, you failed. You used an article that you did not understand and applied it to a policy that you did not understand. I quoted from the article that you mentioned, and I DID link that showed how you were wrong.

And no, having a PAC and campaigning against a candidate is not allowed either. Remember the speech that you femaledogthathashadpuppiesed about? The IRS, which was under Bush's control at that time determined that was not a violation. That was not campaigning against Bush.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree.

Good-Ole-Rebel

People's rights are not being taken away. Organizations are not people.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, you failed. You used an article that you did not understand and applied it to a policy that you did not understand. I quoted from the article that you mentioned, and I DID link that showed how you were wrong.

And no, having a PAC and campaigning against a candidate is not allowed either. Remember the speech that you femaledogthathashadpuppiesed about? The IRS, which was under Bush's control at that time determined that was not a violation. That was not campaigning against Bush.

No, I understood it. And I gave you the quotes in the articles. All was done when NAACP was 501c3. The SPLC is in bed with the NAACP as they try and destroy political opponents. This is why the NAACP has always had PAC's. Political....see.

Now under 501c4 the NAACP is still a non-profit organization but can continue in their political goals with the SPLC in getting people elected they want and destroying others they don't. And they can still write expenses off on their taxes. Only you can't contribute and write it off.

So, Churches should take note. Become 501c4. That way you don't have to have the 501c3 used against you when you whisper anything political. Better yet, don't become 501c at all.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I understood it. And I gave you the quotes in the articles. All was done when NAACP was 501c3. The SPLC is in bed with the NAACP as they try and destroy political opponents. This is why the NAACP has always had PAC's. Political....see.

Now under 501c4 the NAACP is still a non-profit organization but can continue in their political goals with the SPLC in getting people elected they want and destroying others they don't. And they can still write expenses off on their taxes. Only you can't contribute and write it off.

So, Churches should take note. Become 501c4. That way you don't have to have the 501c3 used against you when you whisper anything political. Better yet, don't become 501c at all.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Wrong again. You simply do not understand the sort of political activity that is not allowed. The article explained that and I quoted that passage. They cannot support or oppose a political campaign. As a result you are wrong about your complaints against the NAACP and the SPLC.

And I agree on your last statement. But churches disagree with you. They want donations made to them tax deductible. They would not be if they followed your suggestion. Donations made to 501c4 organizations are not tax deductible for individuals:

Which Donations are Tax-Deductible? (with pictures)

 

[Twilight Hue]

And the title is not accurate. It only bans them for advocating for or against a particular party or candidate during elections.

Same thing. It's a clear violation of freedom of speech.

I'm not big for churches, but I will side with them to protect that freedom.

It's a socialist Democratic tactic and a systemic grab to implement and permanently establish a malicious political mechanism to ensure they have more control over people because they know Christians generally side with Republicans, so they just decided to silence all voices of clergy and their parishioners because in the People's Republic of New York, they know they won't be challenged.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Wrong again. You simply do not understand the sort of political activity that is not allowed. The article explained that and I quoted that passage. They cannot support or oppose a political campaign. As a result you are wrong about your complaints against the NAACP and the SPLC.

And I agree on your last statement. But churches disagree with you. They want donations made to them tax deductible. They would not be if they followed your suggestion. Donations made to 501c4 organizations are not tax deductible for individuals:

Which Donations are Tax-Deductible? (with pictures)

As I said, the NAACP is a political organization. That is why they have always had 'Political Action Committee's'. See? They have always in some way supported or sought to destroy political candidates. Even while they were 501c3. Trump is the reason they had to fully get on board with their political efforts and are now 501c4.

The SPLC works with the NAACP to destroy opposing candidates or just political opponents They use race of course as their weapon.

Well, the Church is free to have a Political Action Committee without 501c4....correct? I mean the NAACP did it. They can instruct people in Washington of the dangers of certain liberal beliefs and the people who hold them. They don't need to endorse a candidate for anything. Just instruct people. Just like the NAACP did. Correct?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same thing. It's a clear violation of freedom of speech.

I'm not big for churches, but I will side with them to protect that freedom.

It's a socialist Democratic tactic and a systemic grab to implement and permanently establish a malicious political mechanism to ensure they have more control over people because they know Christians generally side with Republicans, so they just decided to silence all voices of clergy and their parishioners because in the People's Republic of New York, they know they won't be challenged.

How is it a violation of their free speech? Churches are not singled out for this. 501c3 organizations cannot support or oppose political candidates. They could always change their tax status.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, the NAACP is a political organization. That is why they have always had 'Political Action Committee's'. See? They have always in some way supported or sought to destroy political candidates. Even while they were 501c3. Trump is the reason they had to fully get on board with their political efforts and are now 501c4.

The SPLC works with the NAACP to destroy opposing candidates or just political opponents They use race of course as their weapon.

Well, the Church is free to have a Political Action Committee without 501c4....correct? I mean the NAACP did it. They can instruct people in Washington of the dangers of certain liberal beliefs and the people who hold them. They don't need to endorse a candidate for anything. Just instruct people. Just like the NAACP did. Correct?

Good-Ole-Rebel

It was an empty claim that you did not support. And the NAACP only gave to nonpolitical PACs in the past. Churches could and can do the same. What 501c3 organizations cannot do is to endorse or oppose candidates, nor can the PACs they contribute to.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It was an empty claim that you did not support. And the NAACP only gave to nonpolitical PACs in the past. Churches could and can do the same. What 501c3 organizations cannot do is to endorse or oppose candidates, nor can the PACs they contribute to.

They are called 'Political Action Committee's'. They are not called 'Non-political political Action Committees'

As I said, and did support, the NAACP is in bed with SPLC. They are both political and SPLC I believe still is 501c3.

The Church doesn't have to say they are endorsing or opposing anyone. They can say that Trump is saying this and the other candidate is saying this or that. It would still be clear to all who they would support without them coming out and saying it. Just like the NAACP has always done with their 'Political Action Committee's'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are called 'Political Action Committee's'. They are not called 'Non-political political Action Committees'

As I said, and did support, the NAACP is in bed with SPLC. They are both political and SPLC I believe still is 501c3.

The Church doesn't have to say they are endorsing or opposing anyone. They can say that Trump is saying this and the other candidate is saying this or that. It would still be clear to all who they would support without them coming out and saying it. Just like the NAACP has always done with their 'Political Action Committee's'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I see that English still gives you trouble at times. One can lobby for a cause without being partisan.

You want churches to cross the line. What you are suggesting would be advocating for a specific candidate.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the sort of PAC that the NAACP supports. Please note no mention of parties or candidates:

NAACP Washington, DC Branch

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I see that English still gives you trouble at times. One can lobby for a cause without being partisan.

Not at all, I understand "Political Action Committee" very well.

Your statement makes no sense. "One can lobby for a cause without being partisan" And, what does that matter? The Church would not be doing it because it is non-partisan. Just like the NAACP/SPLC doesn't do it because it is non-partisan. That is common knowledge. The Church as 501c3 would just have to instruct Washington on the good and bad of certain candidates. Everyone would know who the Church supported, but the Church doesn't have to say it.

Just like the NAACP/SPLC does.

So, in other words, the Churches can remain 501c3 and create PAC's in Washington and every capital in every state, and set about to instruct the leaders of the governments the good and bad of certain issues that are supported or not supported by certain candidates. Not a bad idea.

Or, the Churches can go ahead and become 501c4, and create PAC's in Washington and every capital in every state and set about to have certain candidates elected to office or make sure some candidates are not elected. A better idea.

Either way the Church can speak to the political issues of the day.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all, I understand "Political Action Committee" very well.

Your statement makes no sense. "One can lobby for a cause without being partisan" And, what does that matter? The Church would not be doing it because it is non-partisan. Just like the NAACP/SPLC doesn't do it because it is non-partisan. That is common knowledge. The Church as 501c3 would just have to instruct Washington on the good and bad of certain candidates. Everyone would know who the Church supported, but the Church doesn't have to say it.

Just like the NAACP/SPLC does.

So, in other words, the Churches can remain 501c3 and create PAC's in Washington and every capital in every state, and set about to instruct the leaders of the governments the good and bad of certain issues that are supported or not supported by certain candidates. Not a bad idea.

Or, the Churches can go ahead and become 501c4, and create PAC's in Washington and every capital in every state and set about to have certain candidates elected to office or make sure some candidates are not elected. A better idea.

Either way the Church can speak to the political issues of the day.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I see that at best you are still terribly confused. You specifically stated that a church could compare the two candidates. That would be partisan. Of course every time you screw up you have to change your posts.

If churches followed your lead they would lose their 501c3 status. Can you own up to your ignorant errors? You thought that going 501c4 would be an out. When you realized you screwed up did you admit it? No, you decided to give the churches bad advice.

When I first posted here I linked a source from a Christian lawfirm explaining why churches can't do that.

The example of a PAC that the NAACP used was apolitical. They were not partisan. It did not advocate for or against any specific candidate or party.

Do you understand yet? Luckily for the churches most of them understand this. They know that even though Trump said he would not prosecute the law that they would be breaking that the next President almost certainly will. And they could lose their standing then.

With friends like you those churches do not need enemies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How is it a violation of their free speech? Churches are not singled out for this. 501c3 organizations cannot support or oppose political candidates. They could always change their tax status.

Take a look back to 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...18/report-obama-campaign-to-become-nonprofit/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take a look back to 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...18/report-obama-campaign-to-become-nonprofit/

I can't read it due to the paywall. Tell me, what sort of non-profit did he make his campaign? There are different sorts and different tax-laws. Churches in general want to be 501c3 organizations. There is no way that Obama's campaign would qualify for that. Wait, no need. I found another source and I was right. His campaign became a 501c4 nonprofit. Those can get involved in politics.

The difference between a 501c3 and a 501c4 is that if you made a donation to a 501c3 that would be tax deductible. You could take that deduction off of your income. You could not do that with a 501c4 organization. The organization does not pay taxes but contributions by individuals are not tax deductible. I posted a link earlier that explained that. People are more likely to give large sums of money to an organization that allows them to deduct those taxes from their income. That is why churches want to be 501c3.

Organizing for Action - Wikipedia

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I see that at best you are still terribly confused. You specifically stated that a church could compare the two candidates. That would be partisan. Of course every time you screw up you have to change your posts.

If churches followed your lead they would lose their 501c3 status. Can you own up to your ignorant errors? You thought that going 501c4 would be an out. When you realized you screwed up did you admit it? No, you decided to give the churches bad advice.

When I first posted here I linked a source from a Christian lawfirm explaining why churches can't do that.

The example of a PAC that the NAACP used was apolitical. They were not partisan. It did not advocate for or against any specific candidate or party.

Do you understand yet? Luckily for the churches most of them understand this. They know that even though Trump said he would not prosecute the law that they would be breaking that the next President almost certainly will. And they could lose their standing then.

With friends like you those churches do not need enemies.

Where did I say the Church could compare the two candidates? I said the Church under 501c3 could have a PAC and instruct Washington on the views the candidates held without endorsing one. Just like the NAACP/SPLC does.

You admitted that the churches can be political as long as they don't endorse a candidate. So, all is well.

Again, PAC means Political Activist Committee. Is that so hard to understand. Political is political.

So, again, the Churches can have a political voice. Under the 501c3 they can have a PAC, just like the NAACP. And as long as they don't endorse a candidate, all is well. Great.

Or, they can become 501c4, and endorse a candidate. Those who give to the Chruch just can't write it off. But, most who give to the Church don't try and write it off. So it is no big deal.

Point being, the church can and should have a political voice. Let each church choose the method it would like to go. Then sit back and listen to the liberals howl.

In other words, the Churches have a right to voice their politics as much as any other organization does. That sounds very American...right?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I say the Church could compare the two candidates? I said the Church under 501c3 could have a PAC and instruct Washington on the views the candidates held without endorsing one. Just like the NAACP/SPLC does.

You admitted that the churches can be political as long as they don't endorse a candidate. So, all is well.

Again, PAC means Political Activist Committee. Is that so hard to understand. Political is political.

So, again, the Churches can have a political voice. Under the 501c3 they can have a PAC, just like the NAACP. And as long as they don't endorse a candidate, all is well. Great.

Or, they can become 501c4, and endorse a candidate. Those who give to the Chruch just can't write it off. But, most who give to the Church don't try and write it off. So it is no big deal.

Point being, the church can and should have a political voice. Let each church choose the method it would like to go. Then sit back and listen to the liberals howl.

In other words, the Churches have a right to voice their politics as much as any other organization does. That sounds very American...right?

Good-Ole-Rebel

When you said this:

"They can say that Trump is saying this and the other candidate is saying this or that."

And no, when it comes to PAC's there are different types of PAC's. Some give to almost any candidate since they are advocating for a specific issue. That is permissible. It is when one advocates for a party or a candidate. If one was an anti-choice believer one could advocate against abortion. Though if one was truly against abortion one would ironically support Planned Parenthood. Most anti-choice people are just that. They are anti-choice. They are not anti-abortion and they are definitely not "pro-life".


And are you kidding? I would say that most that donate to the church do attempt to write it off. If I was giving 10% of my income to a charity, which churches do qualify for, I would definitely have that in my tax return.

And churches can and do have a political voice. It is merely limited by their chosen tax status. They could change their status if they wanted to get more active, but very very few do.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

When you said this:

"They can say that Trump is saying this and the other candidate is saying this or that."

And no, when it comes to PAC's there are different types of PAC's. Some give to almost any candidate since they are advocating for a specific issue. That is permissible. It is when one advocates for a party or a candidate. If one was an anti-choice believer one could advocate against abortion. Though if one was truly against abortion one would ironically support Planned Parenthood. Most anti-choice people are just that. They are anti-choice. They are not anti-abortion and they are definitely not "pro-life".


And are you kidding? I would say that most that donate to the church do attempt to write it off. If I was giving 10% of my income to a charity, which churches do qualify for, I would definitely have that in my tax return.

And churches can and do have a political voice. It is merely limited by their chosen tax status. They could change their status if they wanted to get more active, but very very few do.

PAC=Political Action Committee. It can't get any more plain than that. It is political. My how you like to explain away the NAACP's involvement in Politics when they are nothing but political.

The point being, again, the church can have a political voice as you have admitted. Just obey the 501c3 and form a PAC and teach Washington about the views the candidates hold without endorsing any. Or, change to 501c4, and endorse a candidate and try and destroy others candidate as the NAACP/SPLC has been doing for years under 501c3.

I have no problem with either. Neither should you...correct?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

PAC=Political Action Committee. It can't get any more plain than that. It is political. My how you like to explain away the NAACP's involvement in Politics when they are nothing but political.

The point being, again, the church can have a political voice as you have admitted. Just obey the 501c3 and form a PAC and teach Washington about the views the candidates hold without endorsing any. Or, change to 501c4, and endorse a candidate and try and destroy others candidate as the NAACP/SPLC has been doing for years under 501c3.

I have no problem with either. Neither should you...correct?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes, I understand that you have a reading problem Here is a clue, do not take everything so literally. The meaning of words change with time and usage.

The PAC's that a 501c3 church can form and contribute to are severely limited. Once again they cannot advocate for a politician or a party. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The people at the NAACP understood it. I linked an example of an apolitical PAC for you. Why didn't you read it?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes, I understand that you have a reading problem Here is a clue, do not take everything so literally. The meaning of words change with time and usage.

The PAC's that a 501c3 church can form and contribute to are severely limited. Once again they cannot advocate for a politician or a party. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The people at the NAACP understood it. I linked an example of an apolitical PAC for you. Why didn't you read it?

No problem. You agree that the Church can form PAC's as the NAACP has in the past. You agree that the Church can change to 501c4 and actively support a particular candidate.

In other words you agree that the Church can have a political voice with Political Action Committee's. Just like the NAACP/SPLC.

I have no problem with that. Do you?

Good-Ole-Rebel