The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Should churches that del. Preach Politics from the Pulpit lose their tax exemption?
Sheep
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
More specifically, since the issue of Gay Rights, Prop 8, and the election of Obama has blown up within the past few months, do you think that Churches that get heavily involved with politics, either through directly campaigning for an issue, directly funding an issue, or merely publicly supporting an agenda, should have their tax exempt status revoked?
Example 1:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest
The Mormon Church, which is based in Utah, officially took a stance on California's Proposition 8. They directly endorsed Yes on Prop 8, directly campaigned against Prop 8, and directly funded it.
Do you think this violates the separation of church and state?
I'm not a legal scholar by any means, and one of the main issues that I see is a huge cry of persecution that will result from the LDS losing their tax exemption. But if this is a very clear cut case in violation of the constitution, then there's not much you can do about it.
Example 2:
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1
A less clear cut case. I would hope that the church body would realize that what this man is doing is very un Christian and vote to have him removed. But I don't think that's going to happen, and issues like this are even less clear.
If anyone can clear some of this up, please do.
Example 1:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest
The Mormon Church, which is based in Utah, officially took a stance on California's Proposition 8. They directly endorsed Yes on Prop 8, directly campaigned against Prop 8, and directly funded it.
Do you think this violates the separation of church and state?
I'm not a legal scholar by any means, and one of the main issues that I see is a huge cry of persecution that will result from the LDS losing their tax exemption. But if this is a very clear cut case in violation of the constitution, then there's not much you can do about it.
Example 2:
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1
A less clear cut case. I would hope that the church body would realize that what this man is doing is very un Christian and vote to have him removed. But I don't think that's going to happen, and issues like this are even less clear.
If anyone can clear some of this up, please do.
Sheep on
0
Posts
Well put.
More generally, we can argue if blatantly political organizations should be able to operate as tax-free non-profits. Basically, should you be able to operate a charitable organization that's basically a front for a political agenda?
But for the time being, that's not the question being asked. The question is: Should churches be given special consideration above and beyond those granted to non-religious organizations in the name of SoCaS? And I think that's pretty clearly a contradictory proposition.
And if you think no, then I cant wait to rub the coming birth of the Religious PAC in your face. They will preach the gospel of The Party, and be completely exempt from taxes and most accountability standards. Awesome deal.
That churches who preach a political ideology, push for specific ballot measures/candidates, or tell people how to vote lose their exemption status. The rest of them that behave can keep it.
I'm not questioning all churches.
Aren't they all exempt individually?
What you guys don't seem to realize is that you've already won the fight. It is only a matter of time until enough precedent is set to make these things easier to swat down.
For one, it seems a bit questionable. The exemption clauses are a clusterfuck. There almost seems to be no real rhyme or reason for some of them, and there are a lot of specific exemptions. It seems like there is some leeway given to churches to interfere with politics without losing exemption so long as it isn't a substantial portion of what they do. Aside from their activity on prop 8, I'm not really familiar with them being overly active politically. I'd bet money that they pull a lot of shit inside Utah though. On the basis of prop 8 alone though, I don't think I'd consider that a substantial portion of their church activity. It being an issue, rather than a party or individual sponsorship makes it a little more gray for me as well.
On principle, I'm not overly concerned with organizations not being taxed for donations, no matter what their purpose is (political, religious, hobby). If two people pool their money together to do something, there shouldn't be taxation on the act of pooling. If they invest that money, then the profits should be taxed. If they buy something, they should pay sales tax. I'm fine with churches having to pay property tax, although I'm a bit hazy on how you might assign value to a church.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That's generally how these kinds of things work. The government lays down the rules, and you either follow them or face the consequences. A persons "intentions" aren't nearly as important as their actual words or actions.
I'm sorry Mr. FCC Guy, it was a wardrobe malfunction and I didn't intend to expose myself on national television. What? My intention is irrelevant and I still have to pay the fine based upon my actions? Awwww.
I'm hopeful that under Obama some of these things might actually get looked at by the courts instead of ignored by the zealot in chief.
churches shouldn't have a position on politics. churches shouldn't try to affect political parties and churches shouldn't give money to political policies. all true, the church as an organizations shouldn't do that.
individual members of the church can do whatever they want. this includes that pastor when he isnt preaching. they can organize political clubs, they can each decide to donate 50 dollars to McCain and then they can go out and protest proposition 8 as a group of concerned citizens who all happen to be part of the same church. the only time the church can violate its apolitical stance is when church funds are spent on politics, the pastor preaches about political parties or candidates in a way that has nothing to do with religion.
the church can take issues on gay marriage, abortion, foreign aide, etc. because they are not political topics to the church, they are religious topics. the fact that people made the issue a political one doesnt change its essence as a social issue. the church shouldn't take any action as an organization for or against a proposition but they can certainly preach about how it relates to their religion.
think about it this way, if gay marriage were all of a sudden supported by republicans and opposed by the democrats (in a crazy world) would churches change their position on it?
They can say how much they hate gay marriage and abortion or whatever in a church. I don't care. It's when they do shit like push 25 million dollars (directly, or by encouraging parishioners to donate to a political cause from the pulpit) into getting a state constitutional amendment passed, or deny people communion based on who they voted for, or tell their people to "vote for bob! he supports our values!", that they cross the line, become a political organization and deserve to pay taxes like any other PAC.
This is a bit hazy. Anything can be made a religious issue, but if you mention it (preach) in the context of legislation or political figures, I think you've lost any claim about staying out of politics.
i still think the best test is to just turn off the politics and see if it would still be an issue.
take the politics out of gay marriage and the church would still oppose it (for example). give the republicans the senate majority and the church would stop complaining about the liberal senate (for example).
i think if you want to argue that gay marriage is not a social issue... well i dont want to get in that arguement...
The problematic area is when religious groups with central authorities take official positions on issues, and their followers are obliged to agree for religious reasons. When the Pope or a Hasidic rebbe, for instance, condemns abortion, is this crossing the line? Personally, I'm going to say no. Although most people would prefer that religious practicioners made their own decisions on such matters, I believe that is an issue the practicioners, and not outsiders, should settle, and I hope people wouldn't disagree with someone's right to hold a position based on their religious beliefs.
The people that are crossing the line are groups like Focus on the Family that barely try to disguise their political preferences under a veil of a religious agenda. Actually, you could say that having a religious 'agenda' at all - at least inasmuch as it pertains to people who aren't congregants - is where 'opinions' end and 'interfering with politics' begins.
Second, why shouldn't church leaders be allowed to express their opinions on political issues? Unless they are endorsing a political candidate (which is the only thing they are not allowed to do and retain non-profit status), it seems completely ridiculous to prohibit church leaders from speaking on what they view as moral issues just because they also happen to be political issues. Politics and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would say that more often than not, they are the complete opposite. Many politicians make decisions based on their religious values. Many voters do the same. And it is not ethically bankrupt for a religious leader to speak out on political issues which directly coincide with his religious beliefs.
Who gets to decide which issues religious leaders can speak about, and which they can't? No one seems to have a problem with religious leaders speaking out about poverty, or homelessness, or war, or peace—and these are all extremely political issues in one way or another. We don't allow churches to endorse political candidates while maintaining their non-profit status, that much is clear. But is anyone really comfortable telling someone what they can and cannot preach about in church, based solely on whether the issue is one that is politically contentious? If I don't agree with something a church is preaching, can I just submit a ballot measure as a defacto gag order?
I wonder if anyone really believes that churches that speak out on political issues should lose their non-profit status, or if it's just because you disagree with this particular churches stance? There are several religious denominations which have embraced homosexuals, many at the risk of serious repercussions in their particular religious hierarchy (i.e. the Episcopalians). Should we take away the non-profit status of those churches too? Or just the churches that don't agree with you?
I'm willing to meet you somewhere in the middle. It's not completely cut and dry. If a church wants to devote each sermon of the week of the prop 8 election to be about how two men can't marry in the eyes of God, I don't consider that particularly political. If they drop hints that, you know, there's this proposition up for vote, and you should look into it, then I think they've crossed over the line.
Either way, as I said before, I don't really think there needs to be a line, but that's a bigger topic than just religious exemption. Not sure that's the topic the OP wanted to address.
What?!
And if they do so about politics as officers in an organization, than that organization should lose its tax-exempt status. Just like all other non-profits.
Why do you think churches should be treated differently from all other nonprofit organizations?
the issue for me is what is considered politics by many, a politician can talk about the great salt lake without making the lake a political entity. a politician can take a stance on home values without making home values a political issue.
politicians are there to convert the people's issues into a political issue and then create a fix... so except for elections and voting... anything is game.
Please find me that law that states that non-profits cannot speak on politics. The only applicable requirement under 501(c)(3) is that political activities may not be a "substantial part" of an organizations activities. "Substantial part" is a money test, so unless you are going to imply that any church spends more money on political activities than other charitable activities, you're not going to get a lot of traction with your argument.
I haven't seen anything very Christian in the US government for a while. Greedy warmonger for 8 years. Adulterer before that.
The answer is no. I despise those who twist religion into a political machine because that's not what it is meant to be about at all. On the other hand I have serious doubts that such a policy would be fairly enforced. Show me the organization that would go after an inner city church for denouncing the Bush administration or some other widely unpopular politician. Everyone wants to go after the churches for prop 8 but under such a policy pretty much all churches would be a target. Obama's church would be hit hard due to what their Reverend said. I doubt all churches that preach politics would be held accountable, only the ones who preach unwanted politics.
He said "on politics".
Seems strange that a church would be taxed for straying from one tax-exempt field (religion) into another tax-exempt field (political advocacy).
i think he meant politics from his second sentance
It is an entire other thing to ask your congregation to fund a political campaign about it.
This is my understanding, and is why I don't really favor taxing organizations for political speech. I don't think churches "should" be taxed for political discourse in the sense that the law should be structured that way. I only think they "should" be taxed as such because the way the laws are currently written seems to demand it, and allowing them an exception violates the SoCaS.
Thanks for catching the error.
churches ask their members to donate to deserving charities, bring in food for food drives and clothes for clothing drives etc.
i dont think you are violating any rule until you (as a church) spend church money on a political campaign. or unless you as a church endorse a specific vote or candidate for political reasons.
A political campaign is in no way a charity.
And, of course, you run into the shadowy way they've handled it.
"WE didn't donate any money to the campaign. We just specifically asked all of our congregation to donate money to it. These are totally different things."
There are non-profits, which are a specific type of corporation or organization that is established for purposes other than profit-making, and carries certain tax advantages. Then, within that group, there are 501(c)(3) organizations, which carry huge tax advantages, including having all of the donations to those groups be tax-deductible. Donations to non-501(c)(3) non-profits are not tax-deductible.
Political lobbying organizations are non-profits, and churches are 501(c)(3) groups. So, while all the support the Mormon church gives to Proposition 8 is tax-free, all of the support PFLAG does for the anti-Proposition 8 campaign is not. How is that fair?
Further, according to the letter of the law, the government is turned into essentially speech police for churches, ensuring that they're not endorsing specific candidates, or they lose their 501(c)(3) status. In practice, they pretty much get away with whatever they want. So, it's ridiculous that churches get a free pass on political lobbying, while PACs don't. I think making PACs into 501(c)(3) groups is a fucking awful idea; that leaves us with disqualifying churches from being 501(c)(3)s. Furthermore, while the church would still be able to spend their money on hookers and blow (since churches are given huge amounts of leeway with their money, and practically zero accountability), the other parts of the church which could still qualify as 501(c)(3)s, like the charitable activities, can be separately incorporated and held to the same standards as any other charity would be.
Isn't the national government motto "one nation under God"?
If we are really going to propose that pulpit speech be closely regulated to maintain tax-free status, exactly how is this implemented? Speech codes for preachers? Government regulators in the pews taking notes? Does that really sound like it achieves SoCaS?
The intent of 501c3 as far as I can tell is to prevent an organization that is entirely political from calling itself a charity to avoid taxes. An organization that is primarily a religion is not taxed, going back to well before 501c3.
"under god" was actually added in due to McCarthy.
The god they are referring to, however, flies and is made of pasta.