This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Folks:
Many of you have asked, ?We need help in our pleas for freedom. Our call gets unanswered by the government, lawyers, judges and even our representatives. Where are the church leaders??
I can answer for the last easily and the same holds true for all the rest: ANSWER: They ALL sleep in the same bed!!
Read the attached article and see?
I one time had a minister boasting of a 4000 e-mail list that the IRS never told him what to preach and that nothing prevented him from preaching anything he wished simply because he was 501c3. I told him, ?Write the IRS and tell them you will start preaching to your 4000 members about the evils of swearing under oath on government forms. Tell your people to simply write, ?My yes is my yes and my no is my no?? per Matthew in place of penalty of perjury. I wager your church will get almost as fast an investigation as someone joking about ?bomb? at an airport.? Incredibly he told me, ?I would never do that because the law tells people to sign a form that way.? 99% of ministers today serve two masters. In Jesus?s day to whom did the church leaders serve? Rome?s emperor. Little has changed?expect NOTHING from church leaders?.especially Christ-like behavior.
______________________________
http://www.freedomsp…m?InfoNo=037171
100 Pastors Vow to Defy IRS ? Faith or Folly?
The Associated Press made the startling announcement on May 9 that the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is actively recruiting pastors to challenge the so-called, ?Johnson Law? on September 28 and preach a sermon from the pulpit in which they will advocate the support of particular candidates in the fall election. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the Arizona-based legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.
Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak to their congregations. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly; neither can a church support specific legislation.
The Alliance Defense Fund said that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.
?It certainly does have a chilling effect,? said Mike Johnson, senior counsel for the fund. ?I think that there is a lot of fear and intimidation and disinformation about the parameters that do exist.?
Johnson said about 100 pastors have expressed interest in participating so far. He also revealed that the IRS has stepped up monitoring of nonprofit political activity during the 2008 election. Punishments can range from a financial penalty to loss of tax-exempt status.
IRS investigations are confidential and the agency does not discuss the cases. However, the United Church of Christ, where Sen. Barack Obama was a member, has said that it is under IRS review because of a speech given by the Democratic presidential candidate at the denomination?s national meeting last year.
The New York Times has broken the story that Bill Keller, host of the Liveprayer TV program and founder of Liveprayer.com, with over 2.4 million subscribers to his Daily Devotional, is under investigation for possibly violating his tax exempt status in speaking out last year against former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs. Keller, who was the first Christian leader to speak out nationally against Romney's beliefs, coined the phrase, “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group in Washington, monitors church political activity and consistently files complaints with the IRS. They said Friday that they will notify the agency of any pastor who participates in the ADF campaign.
Johnson?s Law
In 1934, an important change was made to the IRS by establishing an additional qualification for tax-exempt status and contributions to non profit organizations. This change made, ? ?the deduction for contributions to an organization a substantial part of whose activities is participation in partisan politics or in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.? Internal Revenue Code-1934 (IRC). Its proponents in Congress said that it would close loopholes that would raise another $258 million in revenue in otherwise ?avoided taxes.?
On April 2, 1934 Sen. Harrison of Mississippi gave this additional condition: ?I may say to the Senate that the attention of the Senate committee was called to the fact that there are certain organizations which are receiving contributions in order to influence legislation and carry on propaganda. The committee thought there ought to be an amendment which would stop that.?
In 1954, another important change was implemented by Congress, which originated in the Senate from the floor rather than in the committee on Finance. On July 2nd, then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson offered an amendment to Sec. 501?(3) of the IRC. LBJ believed a private tax-exempt foundation was indirectly contributing to the campaign of one of his political opponents. His amendment added the words, ?and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office? directly after the earlier prohibition against influencing legislation.?
In 1987, the parenthetical phrase ?(or in opposition to)? was inserted after ?on behalf of.? The effect is clear; the new prohibition against campaigning is stricter than the old one against influencing legislation. The latter prohibits any amount of influence in the political arena, while the former allowed a rather uncertain ?substantial part.? However the IRS is still using the ?substantial part? test today, which shows that they are leaving themselves some wiggle room in the matter of revoking tax-exemptions.
The Basis of the ADF Challenge
It grieves us that the Alliance Defense Fund is challenging the IRS on this issue because we believe them to be on the wrong track Biblically and constitutionally. Tax-exemption in itself is Biblically and constitutionally wrong.
To qualify for an exemption is a violation of the first commandment, ?Thou shalt have no other gods before me?. To get the exemption the church first must violate the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ and must declare that it is under the authority of the IRS as a 501?(3) tax-exempt organization, rather than non taxable as an organism, the Lord?s church or body ? Corpus Christi.
The latter is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution; the former is not. That?s the reason it says, ?Congress shall make no law?? But Congress can make laws for legal entities such as corporations or associations that the state brings into existence.
The ADF may win their case, but it will only be because the government believes it is to their advantage in some way. However, if they lose, it will mean that we have taken a giant step downward even further into slavery.
It would be far better if these churches would abandon their law suit, take measures to get out of their state church status and then stand on solid Biblical and Constitutional grounds.
Dick Greb of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship of Westminister, Maryland, states,
What this means is that Congress is willing to subsidize (at public expense) certain organizations by way of exemptions and deductions, but is only willing to subsidize political lobbying activities to a limited degree. Therefore, if you engage in too much lobbying, you will become ineligible both for the exemption and for receiving deductible contributions. And so compromise rears its head. Is it more expedient to be a tax-exempt religious corporation, and so be eligible to receive deductible contributions, but have to sacrifice preaching and advocating the whole Word, and eschew any supposed worldly advantage of exemptions and deductions?
Many Americans find it disturbing that some of our churches today are little more than milquetoast corporations that fear our federal government more than the great I AM. Moreover it can even be said that some preachers have the appearance of cringing, ?politically correct? cowards, rather than committed Godly men of fortitude with backbone, such as those we read of in the Bible (e.g., Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he [John the Baptist] said to them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?).? [Trail of Blood Revisited by Dr. Greg Dixon ? pgs. 120, 123.
Rather than engaging in lawsuits to create bad law, even in case of a win or loss, it would be far better for these churches to repent of their sin of spiritual whoredom by jumping in bed with government for protection and provision through incorporation and tax-exemption.
It would be better to go ?outside the camp? with the Lord Jesus and have his blessing and fellowship, and receive a Crown of Life, rather than to remain in Caesar?s grip and lose it all at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
For more information on how to organize or reorganize a church to be Biblically correct, or to get The Trumpet newsletter online, contact drgregdixon@earthlink.net
"Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, “Who is the Lord?” Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God."
[Prov. 30:7-9, Bible, NKJV]I think they're making a big mistake, like another church did a few years ago. (I have it in my records somewhere on an old computer so I'm going from memory here.) They stopped withholding from the paychecks of the members who worked directly for the church…on the grounds that they, the church elders, were not agents of the state but agents of God. The members paid the taxes due to the tune of a few million dollars over a period of years. The IRS refused to validate the payments, sent them back, and said the employer had to withhold the money and submit it, not the employee. The IRS threatened to seize the church building.
The elders went to court…with the argument that they were not agents of the state but agents of God. They lost in court and they lost the church. I think they lost by default because essentially they made no legal defense. How can a USDC entertain and rule on an assertion that the defendant is an agent of God?
I wasn't a member of FG then, but I wrote the pastor an email and suggested he have his attorney review the law which makes withholding voluntary for both employer and employee so as at least to make an argument that the court could act on one way or the other. He thanked me but didn't think it would help.
Then there was the Baptist Home For Children, at about the same time, who fired a lesbian counselor. (Going on memory again, record on a floppy disk somewhere.) She sued and they responded that her lifestyle offended their religious beliefs and as a private religious organization they were within their rights to dismiss her. The court disagreed and they had to rehire her in violation of their sexual moral values. Seems they were taking Social Security payments for one or two of the children…and that was enough to require the home to comply with all federal statutes and regulations relating to employment…church or no church…morals or no morals.
This present church challenge to the IRS is really a contradiction…both religious and legal. Seems the pastors want their 501c3 exemption, they just want the rules changed in their favor. But they've been warned not to mess with the king…
Quote:He will tithe your crops and your vineyards, and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves…He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves…When this takes place, you will complain against the king whom you have chosen, but on that day the LORD will not answer you. (I Samuel 8:15-18)I think they're going to lose…getting self-righteous with the king usually gets nowhere.
I wonder if an invitation to the attorney and church elders to read the material on this site about 501c3 churches would be well received? I'm not sure because my experience is that people who live easily with contradictions are almost impossible to get focused.
Quote:I think they're making a big mistake, like another church did a few years ago. (I have it in my records somewhere on an old computer so I'm going from memory here.) They stopped withholding from the paychecks of the members who worked directly for the church…on the grounds that they, the church elders, were not agents of the state but agents of God. The members paid the taxes due to the tune of a few million dollars over a period of years. The IRS refused to validate the payments, sent them back, and said the employer had to withhold the money and submit it, not the employee. The IRS threatened to seize the church building.With all due respect, franklin, I am sad to hear this. However, it is a pretty good bet the courts are creating legislation from the bench, which is prohibited by supreme governmental law, the Constitution! Thus, it is merely Court Corruption.
As the Admin. Has posted, there is no law which requires witholding by anybody. In fact, it unjustly confiscates workers earnings without cause; and it is theft by deception, or duress, where workers are forced to volunteer. The same is true with the 501c3 issue, where force and deception were employed. Although, the church should take step to untangled themselves from such a condition.
Quote:The WHOLE stick of EEOC is in making sure employers “reasonably accommodate” employees for religion, disabilities, etc. Here is an example on how employers are to “reasonably accommodate” religious beliefs:[…]
Ultimately? We need a BUNCH of others to send this in?.
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1659&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index…&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index….&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index….&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index….&hl= So as you see, to force workers to volunteer is an infringement upon their rights, 501c3, or not!
Under the First Amendment, the federal government shouldn't interfere with church matters. These are issues of CONSCIENCE!
Quote:“An act is voluntary when it is done according to a man's own power and with knowledge…Everything that is done by reason of ignorance is not voluntary.” -AristotleQuote:I think they're going to lose…getting self-righteous with the king usually gets nowhere.Only because the true sovereigns have forgotten who they are, as well as their RIGHTS (from the Creator) and RESPONSIBILIES (Do unto to others…)!
Moreover, the people wrongly view the modern Federal Mafia as king. This is a source of enormous harm! In effect, this allows MISCHIEVOUS government employees to, become your conscience, and tell you: who you should murder (drafts/war slaves), who you should rob, or who robs you (taxes, as currently enforced), what you can talk about (commercial speech), what is private (FISA says nothing is private), who must confess (failure to file), and what must be contained in the confession (1040, ect. Under Penalty of Perjury), the people must spend 10 billion hours on tax matters (slavery), so on and so forth.
Quote:“If we obey out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, he who can give greatest punishment or reward will become law-giver.? “[L] Sidney, Discourses, c. 3, ? 11, p. 380-1Quote:“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” –supreme Court Decision, Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356Emphasis added.
Did you get that my friend? The people are the KINGS in this nation, NOT government employees (judges, congress, or presidents, et al.).
Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” –VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)Emphasis added. Many thanks to mrg, for special assistance.
Furthermore, the people must learn to exercise their power as jurors.
Quote:“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. supreme Court, 1941Quote:“The Only sensible reason for entering into political society is to protect natural rights.” [L] Cato's Letters, #62I am honored to have you on the forum, franklin.
Sincerely,
BOBT
P.S.
Quote:“We can have justice whenever those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it as those who have been.” — Solon (594 B.C.)BobT
Thanks. I agree with all of your statements under color of making a point.
It is sad that the church leaders have the right impulse…to exercise their God-given rights to free speech in general and freedom of religious speech in particular. But don't seem to want to give up their “exemption”. They want to have their cake and eat it too (I've never really understood what that expression means but it seems appropriate here).
Even if they get 'permission' from the king to speak freely via new [unpublished] regulations while remaining under 501c3, they will have accomplished nothing permanent. The only permanent thing they could do would be to get up in the pulpit and announce they were opting out of 501c3 and going back to the Constitution. They don't understand that they are tax immune under the First Amendment.
Their unspoken presumption is that they are liable in the first place…because you can't be exempted from something unless you are required to do it in the first place.
So how do you get these pastors, whose hearts are in the right place, to get their minds in the right place?
Losing their exempt status is the best thing that could happen to them. Then they're back under the Constitution. But they seem to think that losing their irs status has some other unspecified penalty that would threaten their existence. Omagosh, what will happen to us if we lose our exemption? They presume they will have to pay taxes.
Psychologically this is called being on the horns of a dilemma. In any dilemma there are only two alternatives…1) pay taxes or 2) apply for exemption [from non-required taxes] and then complain about the rules governing the exemption.
But by definition dilemmas can exist when there are only two alternatives. So any dilemma can be resolved simply by adding a third alternative (any more than that and you have paralysis by analysis).
Here's what resolving a dilemma looks like: 1) assume church is taxable; 2) seek irs exemption under 501c3; 3) reject 1) and 2) and seek the real law under the First Commandment and the First Amendment [Commandment] of the Constitution.
(McCain just demonstrated resolving a dilemma by bypassing the two top establishment-approved candidates for VP and chose Palin; and this third option struck fear into the hearts (??) of the democratic machine and moved him up ten points in the polls).
When the church I mentioned above was taken by the US marshals, there was no outrage on the part of the church, they simply gave in to the ruling of a territorial court that said, in effect, your church belongs to the politicians in Congress and the executive in the white house…let's have the keys. There was no outrage because the public at large tends to cling to the presumption a court is right in its rulings (with the possible exception of the highly publicized Roe v. Wade) even when the court is stealing a church for its boss.
I'm reminded of Robert Dole, when he ran against Billary for the presidency, asking “Where's the outrage…where's the outrage??” And outrage seems to be one of the underlying themes of your post BobT. Hopefully it'll catch on and spread like a virus.
Franklin
franklin wrote:And outrage seems to be one of the underlying themes of your post BobT. Hopefully it'll catch on and spread like a virus.Franklin
Indeed.
Quote:“Confusion and corruption are the main supports of tyranny.” CatoFinally,
Quote:“Beyond our own effort, life, liberty, and property have no other guard but friends.? ” Cato?s Letters, #62, p. 434Thank you, friend.
BOBT
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.