Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why the Constitution Neither Protects Nor Forbids Tax Subsidies for Politicking from the Pulpit, And Why Both Liberals and Conservatives May be on the
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Religion in Politics
Snuffysmith
Why the Constitution Neither Protects Nor Forbids Tax Subsidies for Politicking from the Pulpit, And Why Both Liberals and Conservatives May be on the Wrong Side of this Issue

FindLaw columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent, controversial movement under which a number of pastors have chosen to violate a longstanding federal law, the Johnson Amendment. The Amendment states that churches and other nonprofits cannot both claim a tax exemption, and also endorse political candidates. Dorf considers and rejects various arguments suggesting that the Amendment is unconstitutional -- as a violation of the right to freedom of speech and/or free exercise of religion, or as clashing with the Establishment Clause by entangling the state in church affairs. He concludes that none of these constitutional arguments is valid under existing Supreme Court precedent -- and notes, too, that the sides conservatives and liberals are, respectively, taking in the debate over the amendment seem anomalous in light of their other beliefs.
rla
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Oct 7 2008, 11:25 AM) *
Why the Constitution Neither Protects Nor Forbids Tax Subsidies for Politicking from the Pulpit, And Why Both Liberals and Conservatives May be on the Wrong Side of this Issue

FindLaw columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent, controversial movement under which a number of pastors have chosen to violate a longstanding federal law, the Johnson Amendment. The Amendment states that churches and other nonprofits cannot both claim a tax exemption, and also endorse political candidates. Dorf considers and rejects various arguments suggesting that the Amendment is unconstitutional -- as a violation of the right to freedom of speech and/or free exercise of religion, or as clashing with the Establishment Clause by entangling the state in church affairs. He concludes that none of these constitutional arguments is valid under existing Supreme Court precedent -- and notes, too, that the sides conservatives and liberals are, respectively, taking in the debate over the amendment seem anomalous in light of their other beliefs.


When the USA reaches adulthood, contributions to religous and non-religous organizations will be
tax deductable and then we will be in compliance with the constitution, both in theory and practice.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.