catholic church affects our government

[poppy]

Does the Catholic Church or any church use a 'substantial part of its activities for lobbying?' I doubt it.


Evidently, there is a litmus test in place to prevent this kind of abuse and I doubt anyone would allow any church to leverage themselves in this fashion without repercussions. Final paragraph in the expenditure test: Under the expenditure test, an organization that engages in excessive lobbying activity over a four-year period may lose its tax-exempt status, making all of its income for that period subject to tax. Should the organization exceed its lobbying expenditure dollar limit in a particular year, it must pay an excise tax equal to 25 percent of the excess.

If there a church in suspect, you should definitely report this asap.

A church is not allowed to use the expenditure test - - -

Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity.

 

[Lynnie]

Geez! poppy, see page 5. I think this runaround reflects more of the confusion of the Internal Revenue Code.

This article specifically dicsusses churches and their tax-exempt status for lobbying, which I've already posted. However, there was some confusion over the wording: Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity.

This doesn't state that churches come under a different code. Here is the article.

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

And, what this tells me is that if it were indeed illegal for a church to lobby, which it isn't, then many, many people would be lobbying to have the recent House Bill revoked, particularly due to the abortion position. Right? I am not hearing any of this in the news. Anyone else?

 

[poppy]

Geez! poppy, see page 5. I think this runaround reflects more of the confusion of the Internal Revenue Code.

This article specifically dicsusses churches and their tax-exempt status for lobbying, which I've already posted. However, there was some confusion over the wording: Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity.

This doesn't state that churches come under a different code. Here is the article.

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

And, what this tells me is that if it were indeed illegal for a church to lobby, which it isn't, then many, many people would be lobbying to have the recent House Bill revoked, particularly due to the abortion position. Right? I am not hearing any of this in the news. Anyone else?

Calm down, I'm just posting on what I read, I'm neither a tax expert nor an accountant so I will leave this one alone. Read into it what you wish.

 

[Lynnie]

Nothing to calm down here. As Kurt has stated: some see things differently.

I am not reading anything into the words from IRC than what is actually there. And, I gave the benefit of the doubt in that the Code can be confusing for many, right?

 

[Bob]

What does this have to do with the Confederacy.

I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone and I appreciate Poppy sharing info about tax exemptions as I was not aware of the specifics. So many churches and other tax exempt organizations in this city are so very much politicially involved, I had not thought about that.

But comments like this one, just make me, and obviously many others, give up the effort to even try to have rational discussions on this forum.

The title that goes with the photo is:
Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler.
Note Joseph Goebbels (far right) and Wilhelm Frick (second from right)
Nazi photos


It just gets so old.

if knowledge is old, so be it. the catholic church's past loyalties give context to the discussion because of the consequential collateral damage. the vatican has a closet of skeletons a mile wide and a mile long. imposing it's will on washington is a non-starter to you because you happen to agree with the outcome. to me, this dynamic is rather old.

 

[Minnie]

if knowledge is old, so be it. the catholic church's past loyalties give context to the discussion because of the consequential collateral damage. the vatican has a closet of skeletons a mile wide and a mile long. imposing it's will on washington is a non-starter to you because you happen to agree with the outcome. to me, this dynamic is rather old.

Knowledge being old, was not the reference, it was pot stirring that gets old and generalizations.

As to whether the Catholic church imposing its will on current legislation is a non-starter to me, is another generalization, I made no such statement to support that.

I am not Catholic and there is much they support that I personally do not agree with, but I think they have the right to do so.

Also I don't think the actions of a few represent the entire group.

 

[BeachSiO2]

At least we know the Catholics aren't in cahoots with the RNC...

The Republican National Committee?s health insurance plan covers elective abortion ? a procedure the party?s own platform calls ?a fundamental assault on innocent human life.?

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC?s policy covers elective abortion.

Somebody has some 'splainin' to do...

 

[scooterbug44]

So the Dems are getting rid of abortions and the Repubs are including them? WTF?

 

[Andy A]

The lack of reading comprehension on the part of many is amazing. Now everyone knows why trial lawyers make so much money. Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what the English language actually says when in written form.

 

[Geo]

I posted the following on another thread about taxpayer funded abortion but never received any response. I'll try it again here-
*********************************************************

I want to back up for a sec.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure.

So I don't really understand why a bill exists in the first place that explicitly prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion irrespective of what prolifers believe in their hearts.



For lack of a better example right now-

I am morally opposed to shooting Bambi. I believe it is cruel and unnecessary. I believe it is wrong. But I recognize that there are just as many folks in this country who view hunting as sport (and ironically- conservation) and the fact of the matter is- hunting is legal. So despite what my personal morals and values are, because it is legal I would be opposed to a bill that prohibits federal funds from being used for land acquistion that would be used by hunters to kill animals for sport.