Rocky Anderson (b. 1951): 2012 Justice Party Presidential Candidate and former mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah[160]
Charles T. Beaird (1922–2006): Republican Party member and newspaper publisher.[161]
Cecil Bothwell (b. 1950): Asheville, North Carolina city council member, who was nearly denied his position because of his atheism.
Lori Lipman Brown (b. 1958): Politician, lobbyist, lawyer, educator, and social worker supporter, Nevada state senator from 1992 to 1994.[162]
Douglas Campbell (b. 1959): Atheist advocate and member of the Green Party of Michigan and of the Godless Americans Political Action Committee.[163] Co-founder, Michigan Godless Americans Political Action Committee.[164] Green Party candidate for governor of Michigan in both 2002 and 2006.
Ernie Chambers (b. 1937): Member of the Nebraska Legislature and civil rights activist.[165]
Clarence Darrow (1857–1938): Lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union, best known for defending John T. Scopes in the so-called Monkey Trial.[166][167][168]
Josh Elliott (b. circa 1970): Member of the Connecticut House of Representatives[169]
Sean Faircloth (b. circa 1960): Attorney, served five terms in the Maine Legislature including appointments on the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.
Barney Frank (b. 1940): U.S. Representative (1981–2013) (D-MA).[170][171]
Thomas Gore (1870–1949): United States Senator (D-OK), from 1907 until 1921 and from 1931 until 1937.[172]
Vincent Hallinan (1896–1992): Lawyer who ran for president of the United States in 1952 under the Progressive Party, the third highest polling candidate in the election.[173]
Jared Huffman (b. 1964): United States Congressman (D-CA) since 2013. He revealed in 2017 that he is a humanist and a non-believer.[174]
Heather Mac Donald (b. 1956): Writer and lawyer, member of the Manhattan Institute and author of The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society.[175]
Culbert Olson (1876–1962): Politician and Governor of California from 1939 to 1943.[176]
Pete Stark (b. 1931): U.S. Representative (1973–2013) (D-CA), the first openly atheist member of Congress.[177]
Eddie Tabash: Lawyer and atheist activist and debater.[178]
Jesse Ventura (b. 1951): Former Governor of Minnesota, veteran, wrestler, actor, and talk show host.[179][180][181]
George Will (b. 1941): newspaper columnist and political commentator[182][183]
Alan Wolfe (b. 1951): Political scientist and sociologist, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.[184]
Andrew Zwicker (b. 1964): Member of the New Jersey General Assembly; scientist and educator, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.[185]
Originally posted by Nibedicus
So basically a non-profit that provides public good is a good reason to be tax exempt?If PP doesn't generate a profit, where does all the money for lobbying come from?
I don't know what Lakewood Church is so how should I know?
Donations.
It takes money to run anything, or do anything. Only homeless bums can organize without paying.
Originally posted by cdtm
Donations.It takes money to run anything, or do anything. Only homeless bums can organize without paying.
Isn't it donations+? Doesn't PP charge for its services? Are those services not tax free?
Well, not speaking for all religions here (obviously) but the Catholic Church where I am gets like the vast majority of its income from donations as well. I know there are charges to specific services (like performing ceremonies like weddings). I mean why the want to tax religions now?
I mean why the want to tax religions now?
As yet, the Supreme Court has not addressed IRS regulations which unfairly favor churches, including:* automatically granting tax exemption to churches (as distinct from religiously-based nonprofit groups, which must file for exemption like other nonprofts);
* exempting houses of worship from filing the exacting 990 form which all other tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities must file, accounting for finances, ensuring that individuals do not profit and that money that is being raised under nonprofit auspices is being spent for nonprofit purposes.
I mean if you look at the person who made this thread and their posting history, it should be obvious that they have a particular animus against religion.
So I take it you support religious institutions getting special treatment that other non profits don't?
And again DMB, you're better off reading what I say than assuming what I said. I asked why the institutions are "automatically" tax exempt when other non profits have to file for their non profit status:
* automatically granting tax exemption to churches (as distinct from religiously-based nonprofit groups, which must file for exemption like other nonprofts);* exempting houses of worship from filing the exacting 990 form which all other tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities must file, accounting for finances, ensuring that individuals do not profit and that money that is being raised under nonprofit auspices is being spent for nonprofit purposes.
Seriously. Why do people keep consistently misrepresenting what I say?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I don't careif you tax religions, I care that the law is consistently applied. Religious institutions shouldn't be getting especially favorable treatment:So I take it you support religious institutions getting special treatment that other non profits don't?
What law are you saying needs to be consistently applied?
Because religions have special protection under the first amendment (and the Supreme Court agrees), and you do still need the government to recognize your religion (although the requirements for such aren't as stringent as they should be, and I agree it should be strict). If the SC agrees that religion does get special treatment, doesn't it look more like that you disagree with the law (freedom of religion and separation of Church and state) rather than want it consistently applied?
Originally posted by Robtard
You implied it when you said "Because religions have special protection under the first amendment" and the discussion is about taxing religious institutions.
Pls reread the quotes and what I was replying to. I am careful about separating (via paragraphs) replies to specific comments. Normally I number them but I found it unnecessary as there are really only 2.
My comment was specific to Rocky's question about:
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So I take it you support religious institutions getting special treatment that other non profits don't?
My reply was "it gets special treatment (vs other non-profits) because the constitution actually does give it special treatment (via the first amendment)". So my question was predicated on his concern for consistency on the application of law.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pls reread the quotes and what I was replying to. I am careful about separating (via paragraphs) replies to specific comments. Normally I number them but I found it unnecessary as there are really only 2.My comment was specific to Rocky's question about:
My reply was "it gets special treatment (vs other non-profits) because the constitution actually does give it special treatment (via the first amendment)". So my question was predicated on his concern for consistency on the application of law.
I'll repeat,here's the thing i want consistently applied:
* automatically granting tax exemption to churches (as distinct from religiously-based nonprofit groups, which must file for exemption like other nonprofts);* exempting houses of worship from filing the exacting 990 form which all other tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities must file, accounting for finances, ensuring that individuals do not profit and that money that is being raised under nonprofit auspices is being spent for nonprofit purposes.
If the first amendment really allows religions to get special privileges other non profits don't, that's shameful.
Freedom of religion should not translate to privilege of religion.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That bit was @dmb,not you, sorry.I'll repeat,here's the thing i want consistently applied:
If the first amendment really allows religions to get special privileges other non profits don't, that's shameful.
Freedom of religion should not translate to privilege of religion.
Churches function and are seen differently by the law compared to your standard non-profit and are given different protection by different laws.
So, tell me if I'm getting this right, your contention is not the fact that Churches are tax exempt (similar to many non profits) but more on the advantages it gets over other non-profits in the advantages it has over "other" non-profits on certain technical tax rules (the ones you noted above)?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Churches function and are seen differently by the law compared to your standard non-profit and are given different protection by different laws.So, tell me if I'm getting this right, your contention is not the fact that Churches are tax exempt (similar to many non profits) but more on the advantages it gets over other non-profits in the advantages it has over "other" non-profits on certain technical tax rules (the ones you noted above)?