flipper wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:18:23 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
? wrote:

?
?flipper wrote:
??
?? On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:00:34 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
?? ? wrote:
??
?? ?
?? ?Jim Thompson wrote:
?? ??
?? ?? On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:04:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
?? ?? ? wrote:
?? ??
?? ?? [snip]
?? ?? ? They are a tax exempt church, yet use it as a political tool. Can
?? ?? ?you say tax fraud?
?? ??
?? ?? Really good point, Michael! Maybe a case can be made for removing
?? ?? their 501(c)3 exemption:
?? ??
?? ?? http://www.irs.gov/charities/charita...=96099,00.html
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? That's why I called for an audit. legitimate non profits lose their
?? ?501(c)3 exemptions for pit picking reasons, so a blatant misuse deserves
?? ?full scrutiny.
??
?? I think the problem with your theory is they don't seem to 'endorse'
?? candidates so the rest is viewed as 'freedom of speech'.
?
?
? They have already had laws passed in some states to stop what they
?are doing.

That's a different matter than Federal 'tax exempt' status.

On that score a legitimate church need not file anything at all,
including for 'tax exempt status', as they're automatically tax
exempt. Or, rather, the Federal government has no power to infringe on
the free exercise thereof, which naturally includes 'regulation' or
taxation, and that's irrespective of being a political pain in the ass
or 'endorsing' candidates.

The left's attempt to silence churches is unconstitutional on both
free speech and "the free exercise thereof" clauses of the first
amendment.

In mentioning 501(c)3 I was allowing for the worst case scenario where
one might dispute their claim to be a 'church'.

? Interupting Military funerals is a terrorist act, in my book.

I agree it's despicable but 'terrorist' is going a bit far as they
don't threaten life or limb.

The States, however, have powers the Federal government does not and,
in my opinion, that church's 'right' to 'protest' does not extend to
imposing themselves on what is, despite 'military' and 'on government
property', a deeply personal and, therefore, private service.

The whole 'government property' thing is a canard too as, for example,
you don't have the 'right' to disrupt a Congressional committee
hearing in what is euphemistically called 'the people's house'.

The right of free speech and to peaceably assemble doesn't mean you
have the right to do whatever you damn well please any place and any
time you damn well please.



SO, you agree that a tax exempt 'church' can travel all over the
country to disrupt military Funerals so a group of about 70 people can
demand that the US Military all be brought back to US soil and used to
track down and arrest people they don't like? Today it's the
homosexuals. Who's next on their agenda?

Would you like to be at a relative's funeral and have a bunch of hate
filled losers in your face waving signs and screaming that they died
because America allows Homosexuals to exist? Their rights stop when
they infringe on the rights of others, and unless the Federal Government
bans the people they hate, it is a political movement that uses terror
tactics. They are Nazis.


--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist! I m just a very ticked
off scientist!!!