It very much is. Most of what people decry as "subsidies" are in the form of tax exemptions.
then they're being silly or hyperbolic.
no they're not. the government subsidizes home ownership by allowing people to deduct mortgage payments from income. Renters, on the other hand, get no such subsidy. It subsidizes 'investment in capital' by allowing corporations to deduct that from their income. Etc., Etc.
I may be wrong on the tax definition of subsidy. If that's the case then I'm fine with that as a preservation of religious autonomy.
How does government subsidizing religion on condition of them not saying certain things "preserve religious autonomy?" How does the government treating religious groups the same as any other advocacy group threaten religious autonomy?
I may be wrong on the tax definition of subsidy. If that's the case then I'm fine with that as a preservation of religious autonomy.
...except that it does not provide that to begin with nor does the First Amendment obligate its existence. (Provided taxes are imposed without viewpoint discrimination.)
I may be wrong on the tax definition of subsidy. If that's the case then I'm fine with that as a preservation of religious autonomy.
OK, cool. Subsidies aren't just handing over big sacks of tax money, in fact, Congress prefers going the tax exemption/deduction route because it doesn't cost any money now, it just reduces future tax revenue.
And as far as exempting churches from paying taxes, that's been the case since Sumerian times, with a few notable exceptions (good ol' Henry VIII).
Although it appears that although SCOTUS has held that tax exemptions for churches aren't a violation of the establishment clause, it hasn't held that the reverse is true. So I suppose the first amendment doesn't require churches (and donations to them) from being exempted from taxation, that is a policy decision of Congress to subsidize their activities.
So why doesn't the press get "autonomy" while religion does with taxes?
They have different protections. They get to say whatever they want more or less. There is however, no freedom from government for the press under the constitution. If one were to exist I would entertain the idea to be sure.
How does government subsidizing religion on condition of them not saying certain things "preserve religious autonomy?" How does the government treating religious groups the same as any other advocacy group threaten religious autonomy?
You're misrepresenting my argument. They are separated from government and as a result don't have to pay taxes. If they want to get involved in government they can pay taxes like an advocacy group. The problem is you're conflating "political advocacy group" with "religion". They aren't. Of course the lines have been blurred too much by large churches and action needs to be taken.
Anyway, I'm going to set this thread aside for a while, I need to get some work done. I'll be back in a bit.
I may be wrong on the tax definition of subsidy. If that's the case then I'm fine with that as a preservation of religious autonomy.
OK, cool. Subsidies aren't just handing over big sacks of tax money, in fact, Congress prefers going the tax exemption/deduction route because it doesn't cost any money now, it just reduces future tax revenue.
And as far as exempting churches from paying taxes, that's been the case since Sumerian times, with a few notable exceptions (good ol' Henry VIII).
Although it appears that although SCOTUS has held that tax exemptions for churches aren't a violation of the establishment clause, it hasn't held that the reverse is true. So I suppose the first amendment doesn't require churches (and donations to them) from being exempted from taxation, that is a policy decision of Congress to subsidize their activities.
And that alone wouldn't be a problem if they were treated the same as everybody else, however they don't. In order to qualify as 501(c)3 you have to either prove that you're actually a charitable organization (&c.) through your accounting standards and where all the money is going...or convince the IRS that you're actually a religion. Get rid of that last bit and churches would still qualify as tax-exempt. They'd just have to put in a little more work to prove it through actually objective measures.
What's more if they want to do more than just good works there are legions of other designations that they could qualify under and also be tax-exempt! 501(c)4, 501(c)13, 501(c)25 and so forth. They'd just have to measure up to the same standards as everybody else.
So why doesn't the press get "autonomy" while religion does with taxes?
Yeah, if a corporation established a for-profit religion, it wouldn't get tax-exempt status. Because most of the press is controlled by for-profit corporations, they don't get the same tax benefits that non-profit religious organizations do.
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."
So why doesn't the press get "autonomy" while religion does with taxes?
They have different protections. They get to say whatever they want more or less. There is however, no freedom from government for the press under the constitution. If one were to exist I would entertain the idea to be sure.
Why does "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" protect religions from having to pay taxes, but "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" not? What is the fundamental difference, there?
How does government subsidizing religion on condition of them not saying certain things "preserve religious autonomy?" How does the government treating religious groups the same as any other advocacy group threaten religious autonomy?
You're misrepresenting my argument. They are separated from government and as a result don't have to pay taxes. If they want to get involved in government they can pay taxes like an advocacy group. The problem is you're conflating "political advocacy group" with "religion". They aren't. Of course the lines have been blurred too much by large churches and action needs to be taken.
What is the difference between political advocacy and religious advocacy, other than the addition of the words "because Jesus said so?"
And that alone wouldn't be a problem if they were treated the same as everybody else, however they don't. In order to qualify as 501(c)3 you have to either prove that you're actually a charitable organization (&c.) through your accounting standards and where all the money is going...or convince the IRS that you're actually a religion. Get rid of that last bit and churches would still qualify as tax-exempt. They'd just have to put in a little more work to prove it through actually objective measures.
What's more if they want to do more than just good works there are legions of other designations that they could qualify under and also be tax-exempt! 501(c)4, 501(c)13, 501(c)25 and so forth. They'd just have to measure up to the same standards as everybody else.
Actually, I believe religious institutions do have to show year-by-year that they are meeting the standards laid out by 501(c)(3). At least, the church that ordained me has to do so. (ULC)
I may be wrong on the tax definition of subsidy. If that's the case then I'm fine with that as a preservation of religious autonomy.
How does government subsidizing religion on condition of them not saying certain things "preserve religious autonomy?" How does the government treating religious groups the same as any other advocacy group threaten religious autonomy?
The government does (at least in theory) treat religious groups the same as they do for other non-profit, tax-exempt advocacy groups.
In practice, of course, certain religious groups get away with really pushing the line when it comes to acceptable levels of political advocacy, for any number of cultural and political reasons. That and with organizations as large as the Church Of Latter-Day Saints (let alone the Catholic Church), the sheer scope of their worldwide activities shifts the definitions of "substantial" amounts of advocacy. Even if you ignore freedom of speech issues.
Another thing worth noting is that 501(c)(3) status is voluntary. No group automatically qualifies for it without having to choose to apply for it.
Why does "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" protect religions from having to pay taxes, but "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" not? What is the fundamental difference, there?
It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which puts in a different context.
Why does "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" protect religions from having to pay taxes, but "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" not? What is the fundamental difference, there?
It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which puts in a different context.
They're actually both in there, but... I mean... if anything, that's support for my point. Congress isn't supposed to make laws establishing religions; the 501(c)(3) exemption could be argued as Congress de facto establishing all the religions under it, while refusing to establish the ones that don't qualify.
I may be wrong on the tax definition of subsidy. If that's the case then I'm fine with that as a preservation of religious autonomy.
How does government subsidizing religion on condition of them not saying certain things "preserve religious autonomy?" How does the government treating religious groups the same as any other advocacy group threaten religious autonomy?
The government does (at least in theory) treat religious groups the same as they do for other non-profit, tax-exempt advocacy groups.
In practice, of course, certain religious groups get away with really pushing the line when it comes to acceptable levels of political advocacy, for any number of cultural and political reasons. That and with organizations as large as the Church Of Latter-Day Saints (let alone the Catholic Church), the sheer scope of their worldwide activities shifts the definitions of "substantial" amounts of advocacy. Even if you ignore freedom of speech issues.
Another thing worth noting is that 501(c)(3) status is voluntary. No group automatically qualifies for it without having to choose to apply for it.
Yes, but if you're a large enough religious group, qualifying for 501(c)(3) status is pretty much guaranteed, no strings attached, whereas if you're a charitable group, you're expected to actually account for your use of money.
This is why televangelists and other religious leaders can live such extravagant lifestyles and never get hit by the IRS for it.
Why does "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" protect religions from having to pay taxes, but "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" not? What is the fundamental difference, there?
It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which puts in a different context.
They're actually both in there, but... I mean... if anything, that's support for my point. Congress isn't supposed to make laws establishing religions; the 501(c)(3) exemption could be argued as Congress de facto establishing all the religions under it, while refusing to establish the ones that don't qualify.
Of course, that depends on how you parse and define "an establishment of religion." That can just as easily mean that Congress passing a taxation law that applies to religious groups could be unconstitutional.
I agree that religious groups that wouldn't qualify for 501(c)(3) status through one of the numerous other conditions shouldn't get non-profit status. However, that wouldn't prevent either the Catholic Church or the LDS from qualifying as 501(c)(3)'s and being able to spend a good chunk of money on political advocacy.
Of course, that depends on how you parse and define "an establishment of religion." That can just as easily mean that Congress passing a taxation law that applies to religious groups could be unconstitutional.
I agree that religious groups that wouldn't qualify for 501(c)(3) status through one of the numerous other conditions shouldn't get non-profit status. However, that wouldn't prevent either the Catholic Church or the LDS from qualifying as 501(c)(3)'s and being able to spend a good chunk of money on political advocacy.
Except that charitable 501(c)(3)s have their spending examined eight ways to Sunday, whereas the Catholic Church as it is now gets away with murder (both figuratively and literally).
And the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to make everything they do fall under an exempt status; they would have to establish multiple different 501(c)(3)s, and be careful that the money contributed for woman-hating doesn't go towards convincing people in Africa that raping a virgin cures AIDS, and vice-versa.
Of course, that depends on how you parse and define "an establishment of religion." That can just as easily mean that Congress passing a taxation law that applies to religious groups could be unconstitutional.
I agree that religious groups that wouldn't qualify for 501(c)(3) status through one of the numerous other conditions shouldn't get non-profit status. However, that wouldn't prevent either the Catholic Church or the LDS from qualifying as 501(c)(3)'s and being able to spend a good chunk of money on political advocacy.
Except that charitable 501(c)(3)s have their spending examined eight ways to Sunday, whereas the Catholic Church as it is now gets away with murder (both figuratively and literally).
And the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to make everything they do fall under an exempt status; they would have to establish multiple different 501(c)(3)s, and be careful that the money contributed for woman-hating doesn't go towards convincing people in Africa that raping a virgin cures AIDS, and vice-versa.
Actually, the Catholic Church would probably be able to get all of their political advocacy covered under one 501(c)(3), since they do a very large amount of charity work. Again, Planned Parenthood does a good deal of advocacy and still qualifies for non-profit status since the majority of their proceeds go towards their clinics.
And I must have missed where the Catholic Church has been advocating that raping virgins cures AIDS.
Actually, the Catholic Church would probably be able to get all of their political advocacy covered under one 501(c)(3), since they do a very large amount of charity work. Again, Planned Parenthood does a good deal of advocacy and still qualifies for non-profit status since the majority of their proceeds go towards their clinics.
And I must have missed where the Catholic Church has been advocating that raping virgins cures AIDS.
Planned Parenthood has two completely separate non-profits; a 501(c)(3) that does clinics, and a non-501(c)(3) that does advocacy.
And I like that you don't disagree with the woman-hating.
Actually, the Catholic Church would probably be able to get all of their political advocacy covered under one 501(c)(3), since they do a very large amount of charity work. Again, Planned Parenthood does a good deal of advocacy and still qualifies for non-profit status since the majority of their proceeds go towards their clinics.
And I must have missed where the Catholic Church has been advocating that raping virgins cures AIDS.
Planned Parenthood has two completely separate non-profits; a 501(c)(3) that does clinics, and a non-501(c)(3) that does advocacy.
Not exactly. The main Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) that handles the clinics and does some policy advocacy and other legal work. Planned Parenthood PACs are a 501(c)(4)s that do things that would disqualify them from 501(c)(3) status, such as endorsing political candidates.
501(c)(3)s are legally allowed to spend money on policy advocacy.
I think you mean 501(c)4 for the advocacy/PAC. And as a Catholic I'd disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but that's for a religion thread not a Constitutional Law thread.
moniker on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Congress isn't supposed to make laws establishing religions; the 501(c)(3) exemption could be argued as Congress de facto establishing all the religions under it, while refusing to establish the ones that don't qualify.
In the small, rather benign Methodist church I grew up in, the weekly tithing paid for a 6,000 sq.ft. building on 4 acres of property, and annual salaries for no fewer than six people. As well, it paid for the parsonage and its utilities. In exchange, the community received three sermons a week plus Sunday school, and bi-annual clothing and food drives to a local homeless shelter.
To me, the net value was that six people's annual salaries were paid (for working just a few hours a week, no less) and a large building was built to produce only several hundred (or maybe even several thousand) dollars worth of community assistance that was given to people somewhere outside the church grounds.
Any secular charity that ran on margins that thin would immediately be taken to task.
Congress isn't supposed to make laws establishing religions; the 501(c)(3) exemption could be argued as Congress de facto establishing all the religions under it, while refusing to establish the ones that don't qualify.
In the small, rather benign Methodist church I grew up in, the weekly tithing paid for a 6,000 sq.ft. building on 4 acres of property, and annual salaries for no fewer than six people. As well, it paid for the parsonage and its utilities. In exchange, the community received three sermons a week plus Sunday school, and bi-annual clothing and food drives to a local homeless shelter.
To me, the net value was that six people's annual salaries were paid (for working just a few hours a week, no less) and a large building was built to produce only several hundred (or maybe even several thousand) dollars worth of community assistance that was given to people somewhere outside the church grounds.
Any secular charity that ran on margins that thin would immediately be taken to task.
Yeah, they could have even dispensed with the charity, too. the code says "religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals".
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
dojango on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
Candidate X can say 'my church has the truth and the right way, and the other churches are all false religions whose parishioners will suffer eternally' because he's 1) a free citizen, and 2) not 'the government' taking an official position. But if the church then gets up and says, 'why thank you candidate X, if you don't vote for him, be prepared for the eternal fires', then that church can lose it's 501(c)(3) exemption. Obviously it's a double standard, but that's OK, because they are two different entities.
dojango on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
Because campaign promises are not laws.
Yet.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of a campaign promise? To make it into law?
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
Because campaign promises are not laws.
Yet.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of a campaign promise? To make it into law?
And when that happens it will have crossed a line into government endorsement/abridgment and be overturned by the judiciary. Until it crosses that line it's just a guy being an asshole. Which is constitutionally protected. Yay checks and balances.
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
Because campaign promises are not laws.
Yet.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of a campaign promise? To make it into law?
The whole point of a campaign promise is to get elected.
wazilla on
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
A politician could run on a platform of passing legislation to kick black people in the nuts, if he wanted to. That doesn't violate the 14th amendment. Not sure how "I'm a devout fundamentalist" somehow violates the 1st.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Candidate X can say 'my church has the truth and the right way, and the other churches are all false religions whose parishioners will suffer eternally' because he's 1) a free citizen, and 2) not 'the government' taking an official position. But if the church then gets up and says, 'why thank you candidate X, if you don't vote for him, be prepared for the eternal fires', then that church can lose it's 501(c)(3) exemption. Obviously it's a double standard, but that's OK, because they are two different entities.
What about when the person saying those things is already a public official? Should the rules remain the same?
If Congressman X proposes legislation to legalize the public stoning of unvirtuous women, a la Deuteronomy 22, is this still protected religious speech or is this an instance of failing to uphold the constitution?
Candidate X can say 'my church has the truth and the right way, and the other churches are all false religions whose parishioners will suffer eternally' because he's 1) a free citizen, and 2) not 'the government' taking an official position. But if the church then gets up and says, 'why thank you candidate X, if you don't vote for him, be prepared for the eternal fires', then that church can lose it's 501(c)(3) exemption. Obviously it's a double standard, but that's OK, because they are two different entities.
What about when the person saying those things is already a public official? Should the rules remain the same?
If Congressman X proposes legislation to legalize the public stoning of unvirtuous women, a la Deuteronomy 22, is this still protected religious speech or is this an instance of failing to uphold the constitution?
There's a rather large difference between proposing unconstitutional legislation and passing it into law.
If passing unconstitutional bills into law merits expulsion from elected office, then there are a lot of folks in Congress who would be kicked out at the mercy of the Roberts SCOTUS.
Candidate X can say 'my church has the truth and the right way, and the other churches are all false religions whose parishioners will suffer eternally' because he's 1) a free citizen, and 2) not 'the government' taking an official position. But if the church then gets up and says, 'why thank you candidate X, if you don't vote for him, be prepared for the eternal fires', then that church can lose it's 501(c)(3) exemption. Obviously it's a double standard, but that's OK, because they are two different entities.
What about when the person saying those things is already a public official? Should the rules remain the same?
If Congressman X proposes legislation to legalize the public stoning of unvirtuous women, a la Deuteronomy 22, is this still protected religious speech or is this an instance of failing to uphold the constitution?
Protected Speech.
You'll notice that Congress Critters are never required to uphold the constitution by the constitution. Just the president.
Of course, that depends on how you parse and define "an establishment of religion." That can just as easily mean that Congress passing a taxation law that applies to religious groups could be unconstitutional.
I agree that religious groups that wouldn't qualify for 501(c)(3) status through one of the numerous other conditions shouldn't get non-profit status. However, that wouldn't prevent either the Catholic Church or the LDS from qualifying as 501(c)(3)'s and being able to spend a good chunk of money on political advocacy.
Except that charitable 501(c)(3)s have their spending examined eight ways to Sunday, whereas the Catholic Church as it is now gets away with murder (both figuratively and literally).
And the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to make everything they do fall under an exempt status; they would have to establish multiple different 501(c)(3)s, and be careful that the money contributed for woman-hating doesn't go towards convincing people in Africa that raping a virgin cures AIDS, and vice-versa.
Of course, that depends on how you parse and define "an establishment of religion." That can just as easily mean that Congress passing a taxation law that applies to religious groups could be unconstitutional.
I agree that religious groups that wouldn't qualify for 501(c)(3) status through one of the numerous other conditions shouldn't get non-profit status. However, that wouldn't prevent either the Catholic Church or the LDS from qualifying as 501(c)(3)'s and being able to spend a good chunk of money on political advocacy.
Except that charitable 501(c)(3)s have their spending examined eight ways to Sunday, whereas the Catholic Church as it is now gets away with murder (both figuratively and literally).
And the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to make everything they do fall under an exempt status; they would have to establish multiple different 501(c)(3)s, and be careful that the money contributed for woman-hating doesn't go towards convincing people in Africa that raping a virgin cures AIDS, and vice-versa.
There is no excuse for this level of bigotry.
I couldn't agree more, but people just keep giving them money.
Thanatos on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2011
Whether or not it constitutes bigotry is beyond the scope of this thread.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
no they're not. the government subsidizes home ownership by allowing people to deduct mortgage payments from income. Renters, on the other hand, get no such subsidy. It subsidizes 'investment in capital' by allowing corporations to deduct that from their income. Etc., Etc.
...except that it does not provide that to begin with nor does the First Amendment obligate its existence. (Provided taxes are imposed without viewpoint discrimination.)
OK, cool. Subsidies aren't just handing over big sacks of tax money, in fact, Congress prefers going the tax exemption/deduction route because it doesn't cost any money now, it just reduces future tax revenue.
And as far as exempting churches from paying taxes, that's been the case since Sumerian times, with a few notable exceptions (good ol' Henry VIII).
Although it appears that although SCOTUS has held that tax exemptions for churches aren't a violation of the establishment clause, it hasn't held that the reverse is true. So I suppose the first amendment doesn't require churches (and donations to them) from being exempted from taxation, that is a policy decision of Congress to subsidize their activities.
They have different protections. They get to say whatever they want more or less. There is however, no freedom from government for the press under the constitution. If one were to exist I would entertain the idea to be sure.
You're misrepresenting my argument. They are separated from government and as a result don't have to pay taxes. If they want to get involved in government they can pay taxes like an advocacy group. The problem is you're conflating "political advocacy group" with "religion". They aren't. Of course the lines have been blurred too much by large churches and action needs to be taken.
Anyway, I'm going to set this thread aside for a while, I need to get some work done. I'll be back in a bit.
And that alone wouldn't be a problem if they were treated the same as everybody else, however they don't. In order to qualify as 501(c)3 you have to either prove that you're actually a charitable organization (&c.) through your accounting standards and where all the money is going...or convince the IRS that you're actually a religion. Get rid of that last bit and churches would still qualify as tax-exempt. They'd just have to put in a little more work to prove it through actually objective measures.
What's more if they want to do more than just good works there are legions of other designations that they could qualify under and also be tax-exempt! 501(c)4, 501(c)13, 501(c)25 and so forth. They'd just have to measure up to the same standards as everybody else.
Yeah, if a corporation established a for-profit religion, it wouldn't get tax-exempt status. Because most of the press is controlled by for-profit corporations, they don't get the same tax benefits that non-profit religious organizations do.
At least, that's the theory.
What is the difference between political advocacy and religious advocacy, other than the addition of the words "because Jesus said so?"
Actually, I believe religious institutions do have to show year-by-year that they are meeting the standards laid out by 501(c)(3). At least, the church that ordained me has to do so. (ULC)
The government does (at least in theory) treat religious groups the same as they do for other non-profit, tax-exempt advocacy groups.
In practice, of course, certain religious groups get away with really pushing the line when it comes to acceptable levels of political advocacy, for any number of cultural and political reasons. That and with organizations as large as the Church Of Latter-Day Saints (let alone the Catholic Church), the sheer scope of their worldwide activities shifts the definitions of "substantial" amounts of advocacy. Even if you ignore freedom of speech issues.
Another thing worth noting is that 501(c)(3) status is voluntary. No group automatically qualifies for it without having to choose to apply for it.
It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which puts in a different context.
This is why televangelists and other religious leaders can live such extravagant lifestyles and never get hit by the IRS for it.
Sometimes people are pedantic, and sometimes people don't know the meaning of words. You, basically, don't understand what subsidies are.
Of course, that depends on how you parse and define "an establishment of religion." That can just as easily mean that Congress passing a taxation law that applies to religious groups could be unconstitutional.
I agree that religious groups that wouldn't qualify for 501(c)(3) status through one of the numerous other conditions shouldn't get non-profit status. However, that wouldn't prevent either the Catholic Church or the LDS from qualifying as 501(c)(3)'s and being able to spend a good chunk of money on political advocacy.
And the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to make everything they do fall under an exempt status; they would have to establish multiple different 501(c)(3)s, and be careful that the money contributed for woman-hating doesn't go towards convincing people in Africa that raping a virgin cures AIDS, and vice-versa.
Actually, the Catholic Church would probably be able to get all of their political advocacy covered under one 501(c)(3), since they do a very large amount of charity work. Again, Planned Parenthood does a good deal of advocacy and still qualifies for non-profit status since the majority of their proceeds go towards their clinics.
And I must have missed where the Catholic Church has been advocating that raping virgins cures AIDS.
And I like that you don't disagree with the woman-hating.
Not exactly. The main Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) that handles the clinics and does some policy advocacy and other legal work. Planned Parenthood PACs are a 501(c)(4)s that do things that would disqualify them from 501(c)(3) status, such as endorsing political candidates.
501(c)(3)s are legally allowed to spend money on policy advocacy.
In the small, rather benign Methodist church I grew up in, the weekly tithing paid for a 6,000 sq.ft. building on 4 acres of property, and annual salaries for no fewer than six people. As well, it paid for the parsonage and its utilities. In exchange, the community received three sermons a week plus Sunday school, and bi-annual clothing and food drives to a local homeless shelter.
To me, the net value was that six people's annual salaries were paid (for working just a few hours a week, no less) and a large building was built to produce only several hundred (or maybe even several thousand) dollars worth of community assistance that was given to people somewhere outside the church grounds.
Any secular charity that ran on margins that thin would immediately be taken to task.
Yeah, they could have even dispensed with the charity, too. the code says "religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals".
All they need is to give the sermons (and to not endorse candidates, nor have shareholders that receive a cut of the tithes) and they qualify.
It's the "endorsement of candidates" thing that's really starting to toe the line, is it not?
I mean, if a politician can run on a platform of evangelical principles, how is that not showing bias toward religious establishment, and therefore illegal?
Because campaign promises are not laws.
Candidate X can say 'my church has the truth and the right way, and the other churches are all false religions whose parishioners will suffer eternally' because he's 1) a free citizen, and 2) not 'the government' taking an official position. But if the church then gets up and says, 'why thank you candidate X, if you don't vote for him, be prepared for the eternal fires', then that church can lose it's 501(c)(3) exemption. Obviously it's a double standard, but that's OK, because they are two different entities.
Yet.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of a campaign promise? To make it into law?
And when that happens it will have crossed a line into government endorsement/abridgment and be overturned by the judiciary. Until it crosses that line it's just a guy being an asshole. Which is constitutionally protected. Yay checks and balances.
The whole point of a campaign promise is to get elected.
A politician could run on a platform of passing legislation to kick black people in the nuts, if he wanted to. That doesn't violate the 14th amendment. Not sure how "I'm a devout fundamentalist" somehow violates the 1st.
What about when the person saying those things is already a public official? Should the rules remain the same?
If Congressman X proposes legislation to legalize the public stoning of unvirtuous women, a la Deuteronomy 22, is this still protected religious speech or is this an instance of failing to uphold the constitution?
There's a rather large difference between proposing unconstitutional legislation and passing it into law.
If passing unconstitutional bills into law merits expulsion from elected office, then there are a lot of folks in Congress who would be kicked out at the mercy of the Roberts SCOTUS.
Protected Speech.
You'll notice that Congress Critters are never required to uphold the constitution by the constitution. Just the president.
There is no excuse for this level of bigotry.
--LeVar Burton
No, but saying that they're teaching people that raping virgins cures AIDS is.
--LeVar Burton