I do think that more appropriate enforcement would seem warranted and would certainly be a good thing, but I haven't the faintest idea how you'd bring the political pressure necessary to force that kind of change. Take the case with the Mormon church and Prop 8. Who has the standing to... fine them for that? What is the punishment even supposed to be?
if an organization fails to comply with the rules governing tax-exempt status, I would imagine that the IRS would need revoke their tax exempt status and then send them a bill for unpaid taxes. Then your standard tax-dispute proceedings would apply.
I do think that more appropriate enforcement would seem warranted and would certainly be a good thing, but I haven't the faintest idea how you'd bring the political pressure necessary to force that kind of change. Take the case with the Mormon church and Prop 8. Who has the standing to... fine them for that? What is the punishment even supposed to be?
if an organization fails to comply with the rules governing tax-exempt status, I would imagine that the IRS would need revoke their tax exempt status and then send them a bill for unpaid taxes. Then your standard tax-dispute proceedings would apply.
Sure, but politically-speaking, the IRS is not going to go after the Catholic Church, the LDS or any other major religious group on its own, even if it technically had the power to do so.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think if you are going to have a democracy then you need to be a little bit relaxed about this kind of thing. Otherwise you get all Captain America: Thought Police on people.
It's like the bible says, "Hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly you're going to lose control."
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
A decent chance if the conservatives didn't actively push them away.
I think the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is vanishingly small.
And, from the perspective of a religious person, why would you vote for someone who considers your worldview to be, at best, misguided and wrong?
Anti-gay marriage is this century's pro-segregation movement. People electing based on it are morally wrong, legally wrong (insofar as I think it conflicts with a reasonable reading of the Constitution), and honest history will look upon them very poorly.
Feel free to use that as your stump speech in an area with high church attendance and tell me how it goes.
You see you're making my point for me, right?
Well, I wouldn't be caught dead running Republican these days, which is the far more relevant distinction. Any person who says, "My faith in Christ has led me to believe I should strive to help the impoverished and heal the sick, and that is why I support universal health care," is probably going to support a lot of the things I support, but anyone who says, "My reading of the Bible has convinced me that the HPV vaccine is bad, because whores getting cancer isn't a big deal," well, that won't be a polite disagreement.
I think if you are going to have a democracy then you need to be a little bit relaxed about this kind of thing. Otherwise you get all Captain America: Thought Police on people.
It's like the bible says, "Hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly you're going to lose control."
Yeah and I know there is going to be a lot of overlap between the two worlds on what they talk about. I'm going to draw the line when a pastor stands up at the pulpit and tells people to vote a certain way or when a church bank rolls something like Prop 8. I think this is pretty reasonable.
I think if you are going to have a democracy then you need to be a little bit relaxed about this kind of thing. Otherwise you get all Captain America: Thought Police on people.
It's like the bible says, "Hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly you're going to lose control."
I'm sorry, discussion of .38 Special belongs in the Second Amendment thread.
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
I don't think the standard is political advocacy, since such restrictions would run afoul of the First Amendment protections of free speech, but in advocating for specific candidates in electoral candidates.
Planned Parenthood has very much been involved in political advocacy. The Planned Parenthood PAC is a separate organization because it endorses candidates for elected office.
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
Yes, it sucks that the Catholic Church has an easier time raising money for advocacy than issue groups do. But your suggestion would make a mockery of the separation of church and state. Somehow, I think that's worse.
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
I don't think the standard is political advocacy, since such restrictions would run afoul of the First Amendment protections of free speech, but in advocating for specific candidates in electoral candidates.
Planned Parenthood has very much been involved in political advocacy. The Planned Parenthood PAC is a separate organization because it endorses candidates for elected office.
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
You can read the mentioned article if you want, but the short version is that 501(c)(3)s are not allowed to devote a "substantial part" of their activities to attempting to influence legislation.
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
Yes, it sucks that the Catholic Church has an easier time raising money for advocacy than issue groups do. But your suggestion would make a mockery of the separation of church and state. Somehow, I think that's worse.
That is a very nice declarative statement with absolutely know factual support or argumentation behind it, or even an explanation of how it would do that. There's really not a way for me to respond other than "no, it wouldn't."
I do think that more appropriate enforcement would seem warranted and would certainly be a good thing, but I haven't the faintest idea how you'd bring the political pressure necessary to force that kind of change. Take the case with the Mormon church and Prop 8. Who has the standing to... fine them for that? What is the punishment even supposed to be?
if an organization fails to comply with the rules governing tax-exempt status, I would imagine that the IRS would need revoke their tax exempt status and then send them a bill for unpaid taxes. Then your standard tax-dispute proceedings would apply.
Sure, but politically-speaking, the IRS is not going to go after the Catholic Church, the LDS or any other major religious group on its own, even if it technically had the power to do so.
Well, duh, since they're executive branch, the president doesn't want to pick that fight, but I think they're the only ones with the authority to revoke an organization's tax exempt status. You or I couldn't sue the church to have their status revoked. Or to have any organization's status revoked.
Every time the IRS calls attention to themselves, they get their funding cut.
The organization is so tremendously underfunded at this point that it's fucking ridiculous. Any attempt to bring them up to the sort of funding levels that a tax enforcement agency for a country this size actually needs is met with essentially a declaration of war from the Republican Party and the Teatards.
I can't blame them for not going after churches for their incredibly blatant violation of these laws, because it's a losing proposition for them.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
Not to mention that the same laws that allow churches to avoid paying taxes as long as they don't actively participate in electoral politics are the same ones that allow secular non-profit groups to do likewise.
If you change those laws to allow taxation of churches, then secular groups would have to be taxed as well.
Or you could suggest a law where religious groups could be taxed but not secular ones, but then there's that pesky First Amendment again.
Actually it would just involve holding churches to the same standard as secular charitable organizations rather than having them get it for free because they convinced the IRS that they're a religion.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
Not to mention that the same laws that allow churches to avoid paying taxes as long as they don't actively participate in electoral politics are the same ones that allow secular non-profit groups to do likewise.
If you change those laws to allow taxation of churches, then secular groups would have to be taxed as well.
Or you could suggest a law where religious groups could be taxed but not secular ones, but then there's that pesky First Amendment again.
Actually it would just involve holding churches to the same standard as secular charitable organizations rather than having them get it for free because they convinced the IRS that they're a religion.
Umm most churches are a religion. And churches get special consideration because they're in the 1st amendment, secular charities aren't.
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
Yes, it sucks that the Catholic Church has an easier time raising money for advocacy than issue groups do. But your suggestion would make a mockery of the separation of church and state. Somehow, I think that's worse.
That is a very nice declarative statement with absolutely know factual support or argumentation behind it, or even an explanation of how it would do that. There's really not a way for me to respond other than "no, it wouldn't."
So, you haven't been following the thread.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly. What do you think would happen to tithing if it no longer could be deducted? You are offering churches a choice between the knife or the muzzle.
Guys, I'm not advocating that churches lose their non-profit status; I'm advocating that they lose their 501(c)(3) status.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
Yes, it sucks that the Catholic Church has an easier time raising money for advocacy than issue groups do. But your suggestion would make a mockery of the separation of church and state. Somehow, I think that's worse.
That is a very nice declarative statement with absolutely know factual support or argumentation behind it, or even an explanation of how it would do that. There's really not a way for me to respond other than "no, it wouldn't."
So, you haven't been following the thread.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly. What do you think would happen to tithing if it no longer could be deducted? You are offering churches a choice between the knife or the muzzle.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
So you're just going to completely ignore the arguments that have been promoted and rely entirely on the basis of status quo bias?
I've seen no argument counter.
My first post and Thanatos' posts which started this whole argument.
At present churches qualify for tax exempt status on the sole basis of being a church. In order to do this we have the government (IRS) determining what is and is not a religion all in the name of keeping the government out of religion's business. A far more straightforward approach and a means of keeping both government areligious and religion apolitical would be to treat them as secular non-profits and let them apply for 501(c)3 status on the basis of their charitable works which you can actually objectively measure. At present we're using theology rather than accounting. How is that better? Never mind that we aren't even actually holding them to their own status anyway which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish that would be partially addressed by this approach.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly.
Same thing as other charitable organizations. Not seeing why religions should get special favors.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
If you advocate religions having automatic 501(c)(3) status, then it is you who is arguing for restricting religious speech.
I'm arguing that religions should be able to say whatever the fuck they want to; you're the one saying that there should be strict limits on their expression.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
Not to mention that the same laws that allow churches to avoid paying taxes as long as they don't actively participate in electoral politics are the same ones that allow secular non-profit groups to do likewise.
If you change those laws to allow taxation of churches, then secular groups would have to be taxed as well.
Or you could suggest a law where religious groups could be taxed but not secular ones, but then there's that pesky First Amendment again.
Actually it would just involve holding churches to the same standard as secular charitable organizations rather than having them get it for free because they convinced the IRS that they're a religion.
Umm most churches are a religion.
And some are cults. The difference? Ask the IRS.
And churches get special consideration because they're in the 1st amendment, secular charities aren't.
That isn't the basis of their tax exempt status, its the basis of protection from point of view discrimination and loads of other things. The New York Times shares the 1st Amendment with the Catholic Church, but only one of them doesn't have to pay for Manhattan real estate.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly.
Same thing as other charitable organizations. Not seeing why religions should get special favors.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
Property taxes do not violate the free exercise of religion. Unless it is specifically worded so as to charge more for religious structures and/or zoning. That would be a violation of the First Amendment due to viewpoint discrimination. A blanket rate determined by FAR and acreage would not.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly.
Same thing as other charitable organizations. Not seeing why religions should get special favors.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
I don't think that the first amendment requires that donations to churches be tax-deductable. We just do it because Congress (and the various state legislatures) have made policy decisions to do so.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly.
Same thing as other charitable organizations. Not seeing why religions should get special favors.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
If you advocate religions having automatic 501(c)(3) status, then it is you who is arguing for restricting religious speech.
I'm arguing that religions should be able to say whatever the fuck they want to; you're the one saying that there should be strict limits on their expression.
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Freedom of the press is in there, too; same amendment, even. Should government not have the power to tax news organizations?
I like how religions are so fragile and corruptible that we can get churches to shut up by just having them pay the same taxes as other organizations if they speak out on issues they consider to be moral issues that are political issues.
BALTIMORE, Nov. 14 — The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops approved principles Wednesday intended to guide Catholics in choosing whom to vote for but leaving the door open for them to back candidates who support abortion rights.
Nearly all the bishops approved the document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” That broad consensus might help the church avoid the fissures that occurred in 2004, church experts said, when some conservative Catholic groups issued voter guidelines that identified abortion as “non-negotiable” and a group of bishops touched off a debate about whether Catholic candidates who back abortion rights should be denied Communion.
Past documents allowed Catholics to vote, in certain cases, for candidates who support abortion rights.
But the issue has garnered renewed interest this year with the Republican candidacy of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a Catholic, who supports abortion rights.
The set of principles discusses “intrinsic evils” and defines them as actions that “must always be rejected and opposed.”
“A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion,” the document says.
Abortion is among a few evils greater than others, the document asserts. But it also concedes that Catholics face difficult decisions when voting and in some cases might be able to vote for those who support abortion rights or stem cell research. “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons,” the document says.
They aren't telling you how to vote. They are just saying that unless the other politician aborts kittens and puppies, you shouldn't vote for the person who is pro-choice.
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Freedom of the press is in there, too; same amendment, even. Should government not have the power to tax news organizations?
Different articles of the same amendment.
There is no guarantee of separation of state and press.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly.
Same thing as other charitable organizations. Not seeing why religions should get special favors.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
Religion has first amendment protection against law on them. It doesn't protect them from neutral taxes and laws. For example, we tax religious publications like any other publication.
Different articles of the same amendment.
There is no guarantee of separation of state and press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Freedom of the press is in there, too; same amendment, even. Should government not have the power to tax news organizations?
Different articles of the same amendment.
There is no guarantee of separation of state and press.
So... because there's a separation of church and state, it's okay to give churches extra-super-special rights that nobody else gets, but because there's no separation of press and state, it's okay to tax news organizations like everyone else?
Also, I'm curious how the government's ability to revoke 501(c)(3) status based on what a religion says and a government's ability to tax religions differ in practice...?
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Freedom of the press is in there, too; same amendment, even. Should government not have the power to tax news organizations?
Different articles of the same amendment.
There is no guarantee of separation of state and press.
So... because there's a separation of church and state, it's okay to give churches extra-super-special rights that nobody else gets, but because there's no separation of press and state, it's okay to tax news organizations like everyone else?
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly.
Same thing as other charitable organizations. Not seeing why religions should get special favors.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
If you advocate religions having automatic 501(c)(3) status, then it is you who is arguing for restricting religious speech.
I'm arguing that religions should be able to say whatever the fuck they want to; you're the one saying that there should be strict limits on their expression.
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
No more so than having employers or professors or editorials do so.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
Nor does it give religious institutions freedom from government intervention. It gives them freedom from viewpoint discrimination. Churches still have to follow ADA, OSHA, and fire codes. You know why? Because it is a blanket requirement that does not in anyway abridge the free exercise of religion. It just means you can't build deathtraps because they're for Jesus.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Except that you are advocating that they should. The IRS is making a decision on the basis of theology, not of accounting practices in order to label a religious organization a 501(c)3 instead of any other basis which is used to apply that distinction. That is the interference between State and Religion. How do you prove you aren't a cult? It took Scientology a hell of a lot of effort (and blackmail) to do it. Meanwhile how do you prove that you're a non-profit or a charity or a social welfare organization or, hell, a cemetery operator [501(c)13]? Open the books. Far more objective, don't you think?
Also, I'm curious how the government's ability to revoke 501(c)(3) status based on what a religion says and a government's ability to tax religions differ in practice...?
If a religion operates as a political force then it has violated its end of the separation and can be treated as a political entity. Essentially the barrier works both ways, the government can't meddle in the church and the church can't meddle in the government. If one side breaks it then the deal is off.
So... because there's a separation of church and state, it's okay to give churches extra-super-special rights that nobody else gets, but because there's no separation of press and state, it's okay to tax news organizations like everyone else?
Power to tax is the power to crush. So yes.
And the difference between having the power to revoke tax-exempt status and having the power to tax is...?
So... because there's a separation of church and state, it's okay to give churches extra-super-special rights that nobody else gets, but because there's no separation of press and state, it's okay to tax news organizations like everyone else?
Power to tax is the power to crush. So yes.
And the difference between having the power to revoke tax-exempt status and having the power to tax is...?
Like I said above, they shouldn't have the power to do either until the church violates its own side of the separation.
Posts
if an organization fails to comply with the rules governing tax-exempt status, I would imagine that the IRS would need revoke their tax exempt status and then send them a bill for unpaid taxes. Then your standard tax-dispute proceedings would apply.
Rigorous Scholarship
It's like the bible says, "Hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly you're going to lose control."
Well, I wouldn't be caught dead running Republican these days, which is the far more relevant distinction. Any person who says, "My faith in Christ has led me to believe I should strive to help the impoverished and heal the sick, and that is why I support universal health care," is probably going to support a lot of the things I support, but anyone who says, "My reading of the Bible has convinced me that the HPV vaccine is bad, because whores getting cancer isn't a big deal," well, that won't be a polite disagreement.
Yeah and I know there is going to be a lot of overlap between the two worlds on what they talk about. I'm going to draw the line when a pastor stands up at the pulpit and tells people to vote a certain way or when a church bank rolls something like Prop 8. I think this is pretty reasonable.
I'm sorry, discussion of .38 Special belongs in the Second Amendment thread.
To clarify, a 501(c)(3) is a specific kind of non-profit; the main difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a non-501(c)(3) non-profit is that donations to 501(c)(3) non-profits are tax-deductible; in exchange, 501(c)(3)s are mostly prohibited from political advocacy. This is why Planned Parenthood maintains two separate non-profits: one to run clinics, and one to advocate for women's rights. Note that in the fight for women's rights, this gives the Catholic Church a huge advantage, because donations that they use for anti-woman advocacy are tax-deductible, while the donations to Planned Parenthood on the pro side are not. To my mind, this is de facto government endorsement of a religious viewpoint. The same goes for the gay marriage debate and the Mormon church.
Now, I'm not saying that churches wouldn't be allowed to run 501(c)(3) charities; they would just have to establish them as separate entities, and run them like any other charity would be run (i.e. they wouldn't be able to use them for political advocacy).
I don't think the standard is political advocacy, since such restrictions would run afoul of the First Amendment protections of free speech, but in advocating for specific candidates in electoral candidates.
Planned Parenthood has very much been involved in political advocacy. The Planned Parenthood PAC is a separate organization because it endorses candidates for elected office.
Yes, it sucks that the Catholic Church has an easier time raising money for advocacy than issue groups do. But your suggestion would make a mockery of the separation of church and state. Somehow, I think that's worse.
You can read the mentioned article if you want, but the short version is that 501(c)(3)s are not allowed to devote a "substantial part" of their activities to attempting to influence legislation.
Well, duh, since they're executive branch, the president doesn't want to pick that fight, but I think they're the only ones with the authority to revoke an organization's tax exempt status. You or I couldn't sue the church to have their status revoked. Or to have any organization's status revoked.
The organization is so tremendously underfunded at this point that it's fucking ridiculous. Any attempt to bring them up to the sort of funding levels that a tax enforcement agency for a country this size actually needs is met with essentially a declaration of war from the Republican Party and the Teatards.
I can't blame them for not going after churches for their incredibly blatant violation of these laws, because it's a losing proposition for them.
Actually it would just involve holding churches to the same standard as secular charitable organizations rather than having them get it for free because they convinced the IRS that they're a religion.
Umm most churches are a religion. And churches get special consideration because they're in the 1st amendment, secular charities aren't.
If we did as you suggest, it would force churches to choose between their lifeblood and being able to speak openly. What do you think would happen to tithing if it no longer could be deducted? You are offering churches a choice between the knife or the muzzle.
My first post and Thanatos' posts which started this whole argument.
At present churches qualify for tax exempt status on the sole basis of being a church. In order to do this we have the government (IRS) determining what is and is not a religion all in the name of keeping the government out of religion's business. A far more straightforward approach and a means of keeping both government areligious and religion apolitical would be to treat them as secular non-profits and let them apply for 501(c)3 status on the basis of their charitable works which you can actually objectively measure. At present we're using theology rather than accounting. How is that better? Never mind that we aren't even actually holding them to their own status anyway which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish that would be partially addressed by this approach.
Because religion =/= charitable organization.
And religion has 1st amendment protection.
I get the feeling a lot of people in here are arguing against religion as a whole and just not saying it.
I'm arguing that religions should be able to say whatever the fuck they want to; you're the one saying that there should be strict limits on their expression.
And some are cults. The difference? Ask the IRS.
That isn't the basis of their tax exempt status, its the basis of protection from point of view discrimination and loads of other things. The New York Times shares the 1st Amendment with the Catholic Church, but only one of them doesn't have to pay for Manhattan real estate.
and if they sell anything they should have to incorporate as a commercial business and run that alongside their nonprofit.
Plenty of corporations have nonprofit branches churches can do the opposite.
Property taxes do not violate the free exercise of religion. Unless it is specifically worded so as to charge more for religious structures and/or zoning. That would be a violation of the First Amendment due to viewpoint discrimination. A blanket rate determined by FAR and acreage would not.
I don't think that the first amendment requires that donations to churches be tax-deductable. We just do it because Congress (and the various state legislatures) have made policy decisions to do so.
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/politics/campaign/12catholics.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/15bishops.html They aren't telling you how to vote. They are just saying that unless the other politician aborts kittens and puppies, you shouldn't vote for the person who is pro-choice.
Different articles of the same amendment.
There is no guarantee of separation of state and press.
Religion has first amendment protection against law on them. It doesn't protect them from neutral taxes and laws. For example, we tax religious publications like any other publication.
If the power to tax is the power to destroy...
Power to tax is the power to crush. So yes.
No more so than having employers or professors or editorials do so.
Nor does it give religious institutions freedom from government intervention. It gives them freedom from viewpoint discrimination. Churches still have to follow ADA, OSHA, and fire codes. You know why? Because it is a blanket requirement that does not in anyway abridge the free exercise of religion. It just means you can't build deathtraps because they're for Jesus.
Except that you are advocating that they should. The IRS is making a decision on the basis of theology, not of accounting practices in order to label a religious organization a 501(c)3 instead of any other basis which is used to apply that distinction. That is the interference between State and Religion. How do you prove you aren't a cult? It took Scientology a hell of a lot of effort (and blackmail) to do it. Meanwhile how do you prove that you're a non-profit or a charity or a social welfare organization or, hell, a cemetery operator [501(c)13]? Open the books. Far more objective, don't you think?
If a religion operates as a political force then it has violated its end of the separation and can be treated as a political entity. Essentially the barrier works both ways, the government can't meddle in the church and the church can't meddle in the government. If one side breaks it then the deal is off.
I didn't say being taxed=being crushed.
I'm not a fucking libertarian.
Like I said above, they shouldn't have the power to do either until the church violates its own side of the separation.
You said tax=power to destroy. Therefor taxing the press would be abridging the right to the freedom of the press.