Churches, Politics and Taxation Poll

by DarioKehl 22 Replies latest members private

• 

  DarioKehl

  Below is a link to a recent story about a Catholic bishop in Illinois who claimed that voting Democrat (specifically, Obama) jeopardizes your eternal soul. This is a clear violation of the 501C3 provision in the US. Churches may not influence congretation voting by endorsing or condeming a candidate from the pulpit. They may also not sponsor or donate to campaigns, ads or political public service announcements. A few years ago, the LDS Church (Mormons) were busted donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to TV ad campaigns against Proposition 8--and they succeeded. When they were discovered, they were only fined around $300 per violation, totalling only a few thousands bucks. That's a slap on the wrist. Now, a church may do all of the above, if they pay taxes! However, to operate as a 501C3 organization, they're not allowed to!

  Many people advocate the taxation of churches. Many people think that's a dangerous idea. Here are some pros and cons that I've heard so far. I'm not fully decided on where I stand with this. Both sides have compelling points! What do you all think? First, here's the link to this bishop's story:

  http://www.examiner.com/article/catholic-bishop-claims-democrats-support-evil-will-go-to-hell

  COMMON CHURCH TAXATION PROS:

  -obviously, as are the cases in the accounts mentioned above, churches are already breaking the rules anyway. therefore, make 'em start paying up!

  -imagine the increase in revenue from property taxes, payroll taxes, taxes on goods, donations/contributions/tithes and wealth assets. imagine the $$$ in the vaults of the vatican or the LDS church!

  COMMON CHURCH TAXATION CONS:

  -by taxing them and relinquishing the rules for 501C3, the churches would then have a legitimate voice in politics and could influence public policy on their terms like crazy.

  -if churches are taxed, imagine all the annhilationist cults (like the JWs), fundamentalists and apocalyptic sects that would insist the tribulation has begun and go into offense mode. some of these groups are radical and potentially violent.

  What side are you on? Please reply.
• 

  DarioKehl

  If churches no longer had 5O1C3 status and paid taxes, could governments tell them what to do? For instance, disallow shunning or discrimination against gays?

  I honestly don't know the answer to that. If so, that would be a great addition to the PROS list above!
• 

  Justitia Themis

  -by taxing them and relinquishing the rules for 501C3, the churches would then have a legitimate voice in politics and could influence public policy on their terms like crazy.

  Churches can engage in 'limited" (define limited) lobbying activities and not lose their 501(c)(3) status. And issues of "public policy" are completely allowed. So I am not sure losing their privileged tax status would impact this area that much. The only likely impact is that they would be free to name specific candidates.

  http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Lobbying

  Lobbying

  In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

  Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

  An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

  Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status
• 

  Band on the Run

  One of my legal specialties is Establishment Clause law, popularly known as separation of church and state. If I had not read so much EC law and the reasons for it, plus tons of European history, I would support taxation. I would tax all religions or not tax any. We are not a religious nation so taxation makes sense. There were good reasons for giving churches a break b/c they took care of the sick, fed the hungry, took care of oprhans, etc. exclusively. Society and government changed, however. The govt. now provided the bulk of these services. Religious purpose has changed.

  James Madison was very opposed to even state taxation. A tax supports/benefits religion. This should be impermissible. It seems as though we just follow traditions that made sense a long time ago but don't make much sense now.

  Serious problems remain with taxation, however. The tax would have to avoid excessive entanglement by the govt. into religious affairs, finances. Frankly, I don't know how much intrusion there would be with a blanket, universal tax. I would rather have no tax than govt. interfering with religoius affairs.

  Churches can lose their status for endorsing a candidate or party. What happens in real life is that the preacher discusses public policy and his view of the Bible. The parish gets the code quite easily. I believe the priest/minister can state their preference outside of officail church duties.

  What I would find revolting has been proposed on this forum. Some IRS bureaucrat can determine whether a religion is charitable and doing public works. To me, this is utter lawlessness. It would take us back to the days of Henry VIII and Thomas MOre, when thousands on both sides died during religious conflict. Civil War was always imminent. Rosary beads could cost you your life. The next day, you could lose your life for not having rosary beads. To select certain religions and give them a govtl stamp of approval is so unAmerican.

  I wonder what the penalties are for violating the tax code. Are the penalties limited to losing tax exemption? I would be livid and demand the resignation of any minister who told the parish how to vote. My parish heats up a bit. The vast majority of us are p rogressive. In our zeal to vent to each other, we ignore that some are members of the GOP. The priests has to walk on eggs, reminding us that the church has no position and even tho we believe what we believe, the church is home to all.

  I imagine the Witnesses could move matters with govt. more to their liking if they could deliver a large voting bloc. Of course, it might lose even more votes from the general public.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Taxing ALL churches places them on equal footing, and would not reestablish the religious conflict of Moore's time because no religion would have 'favored' status. If they were all taxed, the decision would not be left to the individual whims of an IRS agent.

  Churches routinely violate the tax code, especially in the South...and churches of both parties. I just read an author's account of traveling in the South while researching a book. He observed a service at the Black mega-church, New Birth Missionary Baptist Church. The 'sermon' started out compliant (get out the vote), but then the 'deacon' asked two men in the audience to stand. He said they were facing stiff competition in an upcoming election, and he implored the crowd "to give praise in honor of the candidates' decisions to worship at New Birth this morning." To quote the author, "To call this an implication of whom you're supposed to vote for is to call a Budweiser Super Bowl commercial a polite suggestion for what beer you might consider purchasing next time you're at the grocery store." Chuck Thompson, Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession.

  And we are talking about a substantial amount of shekels. Scott Thumma, a Hartford Seminary professor of sociology and religion, estimated the average mega-church receives $6.5 million in donations and revenue from 'sales' of their products. Combine them together, and we are looking at several billion dollars of untaxed money. For comparison, Major League Baseball's gross revenue is about $7 billion per year.
• 

  NewChapter

  I will have to look for links, but I just heard there is now an organized effort by some churches to simply break the law. Talk all the politics they want without restraint. The consensus seems to be that the govt. won't come after them all for taxes, and think about it. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. You know they will play that card hard and loud, FOX News will jump on the bandwagon (cuz these are conservative churches), Rush will spew into his golden microphone, they will fuss and make a huge uproar, that will be proof that Obama is a Muslim and not American.

  This group basically thinks it can do what it wants using sheer bully tactics. The religious right has obtained far too much power, and they are going to use it.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Serious problems remain with taxation, however. The tax would have to avoid excessive entanglement by the govt. into religious affairs, finances. Frankly, I don't know how much intrusion there would be with a blanket, universal tax.

  I think words are quite important here, and the subject needs to be re-phrased. This is not about TAXING churches. This is about allowing churches to retain their EXEMPTION from taxation. The default is taxation.

  And government taxation is not intruding into their sphere. Taxation is part of living in an organized society; they benefit from roads, fire departments, etc. and should contribute to those. That is not government intrustion.

  However, THEY are intruding into government and politics, thereby breaking their contract. The contract exempted them from taxation PROVIDED they refrain from political involvment because, with their power, they can destabilize.
• 

  Band on the Run

  People,

  I can't take the sparring and nastiness here. Yes, Justitia is correct that I am imprecise. This is not my day job. When someone is ever ready to pounce on me for every little error but can never acknowledge the 99% I am correct, I don't need this. It seems that although 99.99% of what I write is correct, I get swooped on. It is not this thread in particular.

  I was far happier not posting here. If Oompa had not died, I would not started again.

  Shirley's response to me was atrocious.

  This site is pathological. I have no duty to be exposed to this crap. It is a major distraction.

  So pay attention to her b/c you just lost a poster who was trying to explain things. I've dallied here enough. My life does not need such ugliness. JWs will remain an interest and a hurt. Constantly fighting battles on some Internet forum is not my way of savoring life. Dink, dink, dink,

  I have spent many years with Establishment clause law. She has not been around long enough to have much expertise. Nor has she passed a bar.

  But I stand in my time out and then I never come here again.

  Not that the real trigger is Justitia, but Shelby's posse-and not even Shelby.
• 

  MrFreeze

  How much do you think the Catholic church would have to pay if they had to pay just property taxes?
• 

  NewChapter

  I honestly don't know the answer to that. If so, that would be a great addition to the PROS list above!

  I don't think so. My understanding is they would simply no longer be tax exempt. They would still have freedom of speech---even more since it will include political---and freedom of association. All it will do is force them to pay taxes. At least as far as I understand it. BOTR could probably give a more thorough answer, but she has left.