Bernie Sanders Says He'd Let Religious Groups Against Gay Marriage Stay Tax-Exempt

[boston bean]

The Democratic presidential candidate says he respects people with different points of view.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Sunday highlighted his record on LGBT rights but stopped short of endorsing the removal of tax-exempt status from religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, which were recently legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court.

“I don't know that I would go there,” the Vermont senator said on CNN's State of the Union. “You know, we have religious freedom and I respect people who have different points of view. But my view is that people have a right to love each other regardless of one's sexual orientation.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-05/bernie-sanders-says-he-d-let-religious-groups-against-gay-marriage-stay-tax-exempt

[Agschmid]

1. Stop.

What's the point of this, do you disagree? I'm a gay man and people are entitled to their opinion, even if it sucks.

[boston bean]

4. Why are you attempting to demand I stop?

It's an article from Bloomberg which reports Bernies position on the campaign trail.

[Agschmid]

5. Be above the fray. Be better than your competition.

You are throwing mud, and you know it. That won't win your team any supporters...

That's why you should stop. Your candidate holds a 43 point lead in most national polling, and likely supports the exact same thing.

The agenda here is clear, and when you post like this it IMO invalidates any claims you might make about the board being on sided.

Be bigger, be stronger, be better. Win without flinging mud.

[boston bean]

6. Posting this was flinging mud... ok???

I think the mud slinging may just be accusing others of doing it and applying dirty motives that are non existent in the OP, in an effort to control what gets posted.

But that's just me. I am a member in good standing. I posted a mainstream news article. If you don't want to discuss or disagree, fine, and maybe stop making it personal about me. That would go a long way in reaching the goal you purport to achieve.

[Agschmid]

9. Okay let's discuss the article.

Do you agree should these groups have their tax exempt status pulled? If this is their sincere belief how is that fair? And how I am allowed to impose my thoughts on them.

You want to talk issues what is your stand?

Take one.

Mine is that these organizations if they are religious should maintain their tax exemption as well.

[boston bean]

11. Well, this is where I am left of Bernie and obviously others.

I think it's a shitty political ploy to say you "respect others views" on this issue, in order to not offend bigots.

I would hope Hillary would not say that, even in the face of what is probably a political non starter.

Why? Because, I don't respect it, not one bit.

Second, you're asking the wrong person, I can't stand organized religion nor religious organizations. I wouldn't care if they dropped off the face of the earth in one natural cataclysmic event.

I am especially appalled with tax exempt catholic hospitals refusing to give women health care.

You got a problem with any of that?

[Agschmid]

12. I don't care if bigots get offended, but I don't think my stance is a political ploy either.

I also have no affiliation with religion and don't care too, so we are on the same page there.

Women should be provided healthcare access, but I certainly do not support trying to control or limited others thoughts or opinions.

The system does work, in the space of a few years gay marriage is legal it happened fast. The bigots will lose this battle, but there will always be bigots we can't rid the world of them.

[boston bean]

13. It is. He doesn't want to sound like he is too far out there, like me and you.

You know... he wants some of those votes.

So, if he had not said he "respected others opinions", It would not have blipped for me.

But, anyhow... how is my posting my personal opinion on this make the OP any better in your view? You know where you were castigating me for basically trolling the board?

I posted the article only. People can make up their own minds.

But now you have my ever so important opinion. Would you have preferred I went on and on about this in the OP? Would that have changed any minds? Would it not have offended people and made them NEVER vote for Hillary.

Jesus, you can't win for trying around here.

[Luminous Animal]

26. He didn't say he respected others opinions, he said, "I respect people who have different points of

view."

[boston bean]

28. and the distinction??

[Luminous Animal]

31. Both Obama and Hillary touted religion as a basis for their anti-gay marriage position...

Based on the positive things that Bernie has said about both of them, I presume he respects them as people who had a different point of view than him. But I'll also presume that he did not respect that point of view.

[Bonobo]

32. Well done. You can tie a bow on that one. Beautiful. nt

[boston bean]

36. He respects the people who have that point of view...

Exactly my point. I don't respect them in the slightest.

[AgingAmerican]

77. You are bottom feeding

Shame.

[Ken Burch]

70. If you're left of Bernie, it can't make sense to back a candidate to Bernie's right. n/t.

[dbackjon]

82. No - if they discriminate, they should NOT be tax-exempt

I pay taxes. I shouldn't be discriminated against.


It is the ONLY position a true progressive should have.

It is the ONLY position a REAL AMERICAN should have.






Man, getting a flash-back to when DU told gays to shut the fuck up about equality.

[Owl]

67. Yes this is mud-slinging.

[still_one]

25. Actually this very subject was posted in the Bernie Sanders Group. It is a good question

which may eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, however, Bernie's opinion is not inconsistent. I would suspect most if not all the Democratic candidates feel that way, as do the republican candidates. I doubt many candidates want to engage in the issue of what is acceptable dogma for churches to maintain their tax exemption. It is a very gray line the separation between church and state.

In other words, this is far from a decided issue, and I have no doubt that the candidates, except for the extreme ones on the right want to get involved in the fray regarding undecided law, which will sure come up in the court systems

There are many churches that have discriminatory philosophies in the country, and maintain their tax exemption.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/28/could-religious-institutions-lose-tax-exempt-status-over-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-case/

"During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Here is an exchange between Alito and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration.

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a 10 university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, ­­I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is –it is going to be an issue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/28/could-religious-institutions-lose-tax-exempt-status-over-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-case/

"Justice Antonin Scalia asked attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who is representing gay couples in the case, whether it is it conceivable that a minister could decline to marry two men if indeed the Supreme Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry.

“No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” Bonauto said. “We have those protections.”

Justice Elena Kagan clarified by comparing the question of whether rabbis would have to marry Jews and non-Jews. “You agree that that ministers will not have to conduct same-­sex marriages,” Scalia asked Bonauto.

“If they do not want to, that is correct. I believe that is affirmed under the First Amendment,” Bonauto said.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked, “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-­sex couples?”

Verrilli said that individual states could strike different balances because there there is no federal law now generally banning discrimination based on sexual orientation."

FYI here is the link regarding this issue discussed in the Bernie Sander's group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128020921

I personally feel it is a great issue for discussion, and not for political considerations

[PoliticAverse]

2. A position he apparently shares with Hillary Clinton. n/t

[Agschmid]

3. Yup.

[MoonRiver]

7. So what?

You guys are the ones who constantly harp about how St. Bernie is so different from Hillary. Well here's an example of how wrong you are.

[Agschmid]

8. No I don't.

That's my point. Be above the fray, when you do that the picture become a lot more clear.

I am banned from the Sanders group, and I'm a Sanders supporter so trust me I get it.

[TM99]

10. Actually, Sanders has been honest when asked this question.

Hillary Clinton thus far has declined to commit one way or the other. Obviously she will get back to us yet again once the winds blow in the right direction and Jupiter is conjunct the Moon.

[MoonRiver]

14. PoliticAverse stated it's a position he shares with Hillary Clinton.

[TM99]

16. Not that I can find.

Karen Finney, a top advisor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, declined to answer if she believes churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages should lose their tax exempt status. Responding to a question from Breitbart News, Finney dodged with, “honestly today just thinking about what this means for my LGBT friends.”

@NolteNC honestly today just thinking about what this means for my LGBT friends.

— Karen Finney (@finneyk) June 26, 2015

Finney is a strategic communications advisor and senior spokesperson for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Pro-gay marriage activists and politicians should all be required, for the record, to state their position on this issue. This means everyone from Hillary Clinton to local public officials to activists.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/26/top-clinton-advisor-dodges-question-on-protecting-tax-status-for-churches-opposed-to-gay-marriage/

The Sanders campaign has been asked and Sanders himself has answered. The Clinton campaign has been asked and no one has answered yes or no.

[boston bean]

18. I love reading britefart before 9am in the morning...

[TM99]

22. Do you have another source

that will provide us your candidate's position on this issue?

You made it a topic. So dive right in.

[Orrex]

39. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:02 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you really want to go all "mean girl."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=427283

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"mean girl." sexist. "stop drowning in your own snot" crude personal insult. "Bitterly, Carry on. " personal insult. Over the top, rude, disruptive.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:07 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Does she eat with that mouth? I would hide the post and the poster in a toxic waste dump. HIDE IT!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. This post is an ugly trainwreck from start to finish. The issue could easily have been addressed without resorting to grotesque sexism and personal attack.

Hide it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disgusting-Hrmjustin
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[MoonRiver]

19. I appreciate a thoughtful politician.

A politically expedient approach would be to rush in and say no taxation.

[TM99]

20. Clinton is a follower and not a leader.

She always waits. Sometimes longer than she should have.

[MoonRiver]

23. Again, that is your biased opinion.

I would expect nothing else from you.

[TM99]

27. She comes out

for things like LGBT marriage more than a decade after DOMA & DADT were made law. She is not one to take chances on principles because damn it, she might not become president one day.

Even if my opinion is biased, yours is no different.

[MoonRiver]

30. There are many reasons why I support Hillary Clinton.

She and every other politician, including Sanders, sometimes change their minds on issues throughout time. But I don't expect you to agree. Fine with me.

[frylock]

46. It's historically documented.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. You sure nailed that one. At least Bernie's not afraid to stake out a position without first having to take a poll...

I have to disagree with him on this one though. Guess there's a first time for everything. In Hillary's case, of course, that seems to happen over and over again throughout her entire political career.
Feel the Bern!

[TM99]

64. Sanders is consistent in his support

of our constitution.

If only the Third Way were we would have had marriage equality a lot sooner, not extra-judicial drone murders, Bush's Iraq War, and NSA spying.

He supports the 2nd amendment and still offers gun control measures.

He supports marriage equality and civil rights for LGBT AND he supports the separation of church and state.

I can't muster outrage over this in the least. I completely agree with him even if I find their religious belief's vile and hateful.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. I hear ya & you may have a point I hadn't considered. But where in the Constitution's 1st Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion, are tax exemptions mandated?

Did I miss something?

[TM99]

68. If all churches receive tax exemptions,

singling certain churches out so that they do not get the tax exemptions unless they believe a certain way or act a certain way violates the establishment clause. The state is telling particular churches to act a certain way.

Giving tax exemptions on the federal level does not violate this as all churches are held to the same standards and they are not based on belief but rather legalities.

Personally, due to the all to frequent use of the pulpit for political pressure, I think that all churches should cease having tax exempt status. I know I am in the minority and it is not a high priority for me. So until that day, I agree with Sanders. If all, then all, not some.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

71. Oh okay, not an unreasonable position to take.

[TM99]

73. Agreed.

This is a pretty straight forward and reasonable position to take.

Interesting though that Clinton won't commit as usual one way or the other.

What a leader!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. Hillary will pontificate her views from on high once her handlers analyze the polling data & advise her what position she should take.

[dbackjon]

83. Not true - you are 100% WRONG

A church can't discriminate based on race and still get a tax exemption.


A church shouldn't be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation and still get a tax exemption.

[Luminous Animal]

85. That is because of Title VII of the civil rights act. Currently, the LBGTQ is not protected under

the Civil Rights Act so I cannot see a legal basis for challenging a tax exempt status.

A church shouldn't be able to discriminate but until there is a law stating that they can't, or someone mounts a successful constitutional challenge, they can.

[dbackjon]

86. Yes, I know that

And Bernie and others think that is ok - that sexual orientation is not worthy of Title VII coverage.


So LGBT are still not full citizens, and many here and in the Democratic Party are a-ok with that.

[Luminous Animal]

88. What? That is ridiculous. He supported ENDA and released this statment when it passed.

"I am very pleased that the Senate took a step closer to protecting gays from workplace discrimination. Vermont has prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1992. It's been illegal to discriminate against transgender Vermonters since 2007. In the U.S. Senate, it has been almost two decades since legislation was first introduced to enact strong and clear federal protections against workplace discrimination against gays throughout our country. Tonight's vote is an important and long-overdue step in the right direction to make America the democratic and inclusive society it should be."

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/825111/sanders-statement-on-employment-non-discrimination-act#.VZxJM6YkJJM

He also voted against a proposed amendment that would have exempted religiously affiliated employers from the prohibition on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that Bernie was referring to people's views and not their actions. As it stands now, any church can spout whatever bigotry they want from the pulpit or the streets and not put their tax exempt status at risk because of that pesky free speech clause in the Constitution. The Catholic Church gets a lot of mileage out of their LBGTQ bigotry.

[dbackjon]

89. Yet, as per the OP, he is fine with giving tax breaks to bigots

[Luminous Animal]

90. Bigoted churches get tax breaks all the time. Espousing bigoted views is not against the law.

In fact, bigoted speech is constitutionally protected. Westboro Baptist church is a virulently racist congregation but unless they run afoul of the Civil Rights Act or the Constitution and are successfully challenged, the Feds have no legal standing to yank their tax-exempt status.

[dbackjon]

91. WRONG. Chruches can't discriminate based on race and get tax breaks

[Luminous Animal]

92. I never claimed that Westboro discriminatied. I said that the espoused virulently racist views.

Espousing racist views in constitutionally protected speech and not grounds to have their tax-exempt status yanked.

Another racist organization the Council of Concerned Citizens, is also tax exempt.

A religious organization making the claim that they are anti-same sex marriage or giving sermons against same sex marriage is protected speech. Now, if a church refuses to perform a same-sex marriage, they would likely be challenged IF that church also is empowered by the state to witness the civil aspect of that marriage.

[TM99]

93. Sadly, no I am not wrong.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/religious-organizations-right-to-discriminate.html

http://people.opposingviews.com/can-nonprofit-organizations-discriminate-4438.html

http://churchlawgroup.com/resources/blog/religious-discrimination-can-a-church-hirefire-someone-based-on-religious-beliefs/

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114517/-Black-couple-in-MS-barred-from-marrying-in-white-church

OK, read through those. What you will find is that churches in their hiring can not discriminate based on race, gender, or creed because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, they can as a congregation discriminate even based on race.

Is it wrong? Hell yes.

Should they have their tax emption removed? I believe strongly that all non-profits and religious organizations that discriminate should. And I also believe that those churches that have mixed politics with religion should as well.

What needs to happen is the Civil Rights Act needs to be updated on a federal level to now include sexual orientation. Then uniformly, rules need to be set forth that discrimination of any kind both in hiring matters and in congregational matters would be the basis for a loss of tax emption. But until these two things are done, if the federal government steps in on some but not all churches then it will run afoul of the first amendment's anti-establishment clause. It is still going to be sticky when it comes to congregational matters.

Don't confuse me saying what is pertinent and constitutional with what may be right ethically. We still have a very long way to go with regards to anti-discrimination in this country on many, many levels.

[kenfrequed]

15. uhm... this is about churches.

Tax exempt religious groups are churches, generally speaking. Are you saying that the government should interfere with churches? Because that would be a bit more radical than ANY candidate currently running. Hillary has not and would not support this publicly either so please knock it off.

[Culver Shuttle]

17. I'm of mixed minds about this.

I am gay. I am all the way pro marriage equality.

I am an atheist who thinks *all* churches should be taxed the same way as any other corporation.

However, if we are going to have tax exemptions for churches, it is definitely an "establishment of religion" if we sort them according to how pernicious their doctrines are.

BTW as a practical matter, lots of luck trying to tax the Roman Catholic church. Or supposing you can pressure them to change in this way.

It won't happen.

[LWolf]

41. Good points. nt

[dbackjon]

84. We already deny tax exemptions to churches that discriminate based on race

We should deny tax exemptions to those that discriminate based on sexual orientation

[DemocraticWing]

21. We should tax all religious organizations.

On the other hand, I don't think we should *specifically* tax organizations who are against marriage equality. My problem with that idea is that it feeds the ridiculous persecution narrative that they're trying to spin for themselves, and would be struck down in the courts as political/religious discrimination.

I think Bernie should have answered that he would tax all religious organizations, but even he seems unwilling to go there.

[imthevicar]

24. BOOOOOORING!

much adoo about nothing, Tempest in a teapot, NON Issue. Religion is a form of insanity, this too shall pass.
Who is going to meddle in this crap, You!? I think not.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. I am not sure the tax exempt status should be based on beliefs...

...but rather political actions. Once they include politics in their agendas, their status should be yanked.

[Gamecock Lefty]

34. I'm With Boston Bean!!!

I’d pull their tax-exempt status, too. American churches, organized popular religion - nothing but a money-making machine. Tax them to the hilt! Especially organizations like The 700 Club - all that holier-than-thou hate crap.

My not-so-humble opinion only.

[virtualobserver]

35. Hillary calls for removal of tax-exempt status from religious organizations .....

...that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.

A headline that does not exist.

[restorefreedom]

37. the linked article is a slanted piece against bernie

it is clear that bernie has started something that is going to end with him in the white house. corporate masters are getting nervous, so they are going after him.

does anyone think FOR A SECOND that hillary would try and tax religious orgs? of course not.

then again, since she dances around the issues and never gives a clear answer, it is hard to tell

[arcane1]

54. They're more than nervous.

They're getting frightened.

[restorefreedom]

61. yes. very. it shows in the desperate acts n/t

[dsc]

38. I think it depends on the defintion of religious organization

I have no problem with churches themselves remaining tax exempt no matter what position they take on the issues of the day. On the other hand, colleges and hospitals and the like are a horse of a different color. They shouldn't be getting tax exemptions if they are discriminating. Thus Bob Jones church should get to keep its exemption, Bob Jones university shouldn't.

[Indepatriot]

40. Tax all churches now. A popular Fairy Tale is still a fairy tail.

[azmom]

44. A furry tail?

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Show me Hillary or even her boosters calling for the taxing of the RCC and we can talk.

I see lots of promotion of anti gay clergy on DU, much from supporters of Clinton and Sanders and O'Malley. I feel less than welcome in all the cohorts because they are all lavishly devoted to anti gay religious groups.

Straights think it is ok to praise anti gay bigots. It's not.

[boston bean]

45. most religions are chock full of misogyny.

Most are based on a crawling cess pool of misogyny.

Most are also a crawling cess pool of homophobia.

Inextricably linked.

Their tax exempt status needs to go. Especially religious organizations. I'm torn on religious institutions (churches), as I don't think that would ever change due to the constitution. Paying money to the gov't would make them part of the gov't.

That's my thinking as of today.

And that's a lot different than saying "I respect other views" on this topic.

I don't respect them at all.

[Bradical79]

49. I agree(mostly), but we're a small minority

I don't know if Bernie Sanders feels similiar, but if he said yes his presidential run would almost certainly have been tanked with that interview.

We might be a growing minority, but going after the tax exempt status in any way beyond a fringe case against a single group would likely be a crushing defeat. I doubt it would be constitutional, though I'm no lawyer or judge.

[Indepatriot]

52. All you need do is provide a link where HRC takes a bold stand and proposes taxing the churches

that are anti-equality and you have a win! Provide the link(s) and I'm quite sure most Bernie supporters will concede that HRC's out in front on this. Otherwise, this is all STRAWMAN.

[boston bean]

57. What is it I would win?

[Indepatriot]

58. Your pointless "point", whatever it may be. You certainly seem hell-bent on some kind of "victory"

about nothing. There is no point here at all except that you are making a non-argument for some strange reason only you seem to be concerned with. So please, inform us of HRC's bold stance on this issue that fills you with such righteous indignation over Sanders response. We're waiting with baited breath....

[Comrade Grumpy]

74. You know, my mom goes to church. And so do tens of millions of other Americans.

They are good people and do good things.

Your attack on religious Americans is ugly.

Me, I'm not a believer. But I still think it's ugly.

[ljm2002]

43. He answered the question reasonably...

...and avoided sounding like he is going to pursue policies that would give ammunition to the "we are being persecuted" religious nuts.

Anyone wanting to get married may go to a justice of the peace and do so. They will then have the rights that accrue to married couples in this country. It is the state who recognizes a marriage legally. The law saying that gays can marry does not say that they have the right to get married in a religious ceremony. That particular trope is being pushed by the aforementioned groups who want to say their religion is being forced to do something it does not want to do.

Do we force rabbis to marry Christian couples? Priests to marry atheist couples? No, we do not. Churches, synagogues etc. are free to specify the criteria that must be met before they will marry a couple. Now you may say that a gay Catholic couple should be able to marry in the Church; but if the church says otherwise then we cannot interfere because of the separation of church and state.

If one wants to tax the churches then IMO one must simply tax all of them, or none of them. We may also take away their tax exempt status if they engage in political campaigning. But we cannot start doing it on an ideological basis, because that violates the freedom of religion.

[Bradical79]

47. Why would he?

Now, there could be a hypothetical case where a religious group that is relied upon for a non religious service of some sort comes up against the legal status of a married couple, and then I suppose the tax exempt status could be used as a nuclear option in enforcing the law. I would assume though that such fringe cases would be dealt with through the court system without needing to go that far, would they not? I assume that's why Bernie said he doesn't know he would go there, rather than a strong no. It's technically an option, but a last resort that's unlikely to come up any time soon. Going to the removal of tax exempt status too soon would start an unnecesary fight with a LOT of other groups other than the offending party, and in my opinion it's a fight that would probably be lost.

[SunSeeker]

48. I have never understood how exempting churches from taxes Complies with the 1st Am.

Subsidizing religion by making it tax exempt sure seems like a violation of separation of church and state. Churches should be treated no better than individuals.

[Indepatriot]

50. Absolutely. If I declare myself Christ's spokesman can I quit paying taxes?

How about Pope of "The Church Of What's Happinin' Now"? (Flip Wilson, early 70's)

[el_bryanto]

51. There are tax exempt organizations that are not church's

Do you have a problem with tax exempt organizations in general, or just churches? And if a church complies with the rules governing other tax exempt organizations, should the be denied that benefit?

Bryant

[Indepatriot]

56. Depends on the organization and what they are about. All churches, regardless of faith need to pay

taxes. Unless of course, I can declare myself Grand Poobah of the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster and be tax exempt. There is exactly the same amount of quantifiable, scientific evidence for the existence of the FSM as there is for the existence of God/Allah/Budda/etc....and that is to say NONE. The church is the worst because they claim the authority of "The Almighty" while they promote their own, all-to-human agenda.

[el_bryanto]

59. I take it you aren't interested in winning elections?

As this policy if expressed by any candidate would render them unelectable.

But of course you have the right to believe as you like.

Bryant

[Indepatriot]

60. You asked my opinion, not how this might effect a politician's chances. Those are two VERY different

things.

[SunSeeker]

62. Tax exemption should not be based on religion.

I have no problems with income tax exemptions for nonprofits serving a community, like say a food bank. But not just because it is a church.

[PoliticAverse]

80. Although I agree that the IRS deciding what constitutes a valid church violates the 'establishment'

clause there is much case law on the issue.

Here's the IRS's extensively documented page on the issue:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-026-002.html#d0e29

"Few terms in the Code have proven as difficult to define, and as fraught with controversy, given the First
Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of a religion or interference with the free exercise of religion."

[tymorial]

53. More ridiculous HRC vs Sanders mud slinging

I cannot wait for the primaries to be over so that this foolishness will stop. And yes, I mean foolishness.

[wyldwolf]

55. kick for fun

[Bonobo]

66. I'll kick because it is embarrassing to the Clinton cause.

If there had ever been any tilt towards Sanders supporters being the ones posting absolute shit, recent posts have certainly made up for it.

[Ken Burch]

69. It's a tiny point, overall.

Nobody's going to remove religious tax exemptions anyway.

[ibegurpard]

72. Oh by all means run on a platform of taxing churches!

Suggest it to Hillary! I'm sure she'll start touting it tomorrow...
What a foolish OP.

[AgingAmerican]

76. More bottom feeding

Made up non issue number 324

[Kalidurga]

78. ...

[gwheezie]

79. It doesn't make sense politically to tax churches

These people running for office are politicians. I don't think anyone will get very far threatening to tax churches. And it would be a slippery slope. Much of the civil rights movement came out of the black churches. We can't count on only the people we disagree with being effected
That being said, I'm an atheist so if all religion disappeared, I wouldn't mind. But I'm also a realist and taxing churches is just not a winning strategery.

[dbackjon]

87. You sound like that people against gay rights 10 years ago here on DU

[gwheezie]

94. Has anyone running for president even suggested it?

I'm just pointing out that it is not a winning political move. Take it up with the politicians running for president.
If I was president I would legalize drugs, empty the prisons of non violent criminals. Make it illegal to place juveniles in the adult system. I would limit the ownership of firearms to a hunting rifle and maybe a musket. I would tax churches and remove all religious influence on our laws. I would have open our borders to anyone from the Americas. Let people travel to and from with just identifying documents so we can keep track of who is here. I would legalize people who have been here s number of years and want to be citizens with no fines etc I do not see any politician running on these positions. I'm not mad about it, I just know I wouldn't be elected. Neither would anyone else.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. I don't believe it is possible constitutionally to have state sanctioned

Religions versus state disapproved religions. I'm sure
Both Hillary and Bernie agree.