« “Supporting the Troops,” Revisited
Hugo Chavez: ‘Prepare for War … Colombia Now in U.S. Hands’ – Ultimas Noticias, Venezuela »
Can We Please Just Tax the Churches Already?
One of the few fundamental rights in America which should never have really generated any controversy is the freedom of religion. On the surface, it seems pretty simple. In layman’s terms, this is a country where you can follow any religion or none at all, as you see fit, and the government shall make no law, etc. etc. etc. And yet, I begin to wonder about the wisdom of the founders when I read stories like this one in the Washington Post. It seems that the Catholic Church is at it again. There is pending legislation in the district which would prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians, and the Catholic Archdiocese is up in arms, threatening to stop their social services work if they are not exempted from having to deal with the godless homosexuals.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”
Since Susan wants to put words in the mouths of the city officials, let me put a few in hers. What you’re saying is that you are openly blackmailing the city, threatening to stop doing the good work you normally perform, rather than have to deal with gay people.
Now, before we get too carried away, I still maintain that the church has the right to its own opinions on these subjects, as backwards as they may be. (What ever happened to love the sinner but hate the sin?) But there’s a lot more to this story. Aside from the political intrusion of the church into secular matters with this outright blackmail attempt, there is also the issue of following the money. You may say that what the church does with its own funds in terms of charity is their business… and you’d be right. But they’re not dealing with just the coins taken from the collection plate. They get a lot of taxpayer money for these good works.
Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on the council, said he is baffled by the church’s stance. From 2006 through 2008, Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars’ worth this year through his committee.
“If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,” Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.
Blackmail. Very nice for such a charitable organization, eh? Seriously, people. It’s time to just tax the churches if they are going to act not only as powerful political agents, using the pulpit to influence voters with the Voice of God, but are willing to bend arms in the government in overt attempts at extortion to change policy if it doesn’t fit their views.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
79 Responses to “Can We Please Just Tax the Churches Already?”
I'm a Moderate on this issue.
I resent the Catholic church meddling in politics while enjoying a tax free status for their business.
However
Gays transsexuals, transgender, lesbians issues do not rise to the noble level of legal equality. No
futher legal protections are warranted for them.
.A right to Sexual deviance is not within the Constitution.
You're not getting it Jefferson. Lots of organizations are nonprofit but not tax exempt. Perfect business friendly example is trade associations. There are thousands. They are not “charities.” Charities, such as the Salvation Army, religious organizations like the church or church school, and educational institutions are allowed to be tax exempt as long as they stay within the rules. Attempting to influence an election–any election–is a disqualifier. That makes you a lobbyist. You can still be nonprofit, but not tax exempt. Set aside your outrage for a minute and think about this. The goal of a trade association is to represent its industry, not to turn a profit. But because they attempt political action, they do not fall into the tax exempt category. There is no reason for us to give them an exemption, nor to require that they make a profit. In my career I have worked with dozens of nonprofits, tax exempt nonprofits and for profit corporations, all of which did similar work. For the tax exempt ones, individual donations are deductible. For the trade groups not, but they are a business expense for businesses that support them, hence deductible to them, just as union dues are deductible. We give charities a break because we want to encourage citizens to contribute. I don't know if you're choosing to ignore the point or just unclear about it, but when a charitable organization lobbies for legislation or campaigns for a candidate, they are not serving the mission for which their exemption is given. No one is singling out churches. Any other charity that lobbies or campaigns also risks losing their tax exemption. The rules are very clear. (I've run a tax exempt nonprofit for over 25 years. Believe me, I know the rules.)
sorry, CS, i nodded off reading that article. So ACORN was a VICTIM of embezzlement. So? And management didn't inform the board. They could get fired for that, but it's not against the law. This is such a snore, but have fun stoking your rage with it.
“Then with regard to this one particular sin, we can all take pride in Christians' overachivement.”
? ? ? ? ?
“You're not getting it Jefferson. Lots of organizations are nonprofit but not tax exempt.”
Wait a second, Green…..
Didn't you see my statement. I KNOW that all non-profits are not tax-exempt.
I pointed out that not all tax-exempt entities are Churches (Boy Scouts, etc).
You can't remove a tax exempt status from non-profits if they are taxed – that's obvious.
I said, if you remove tax exempt status from Churches, then you must do it for ALL tax-exempt entities that are not Churches. That includes tax-exempt organizations like the Vietnam Memorial Veterans Fund, Boy Scouts of America, Christian Children's Fund, and just about every tax-exempt charity out there. Many of these tax-exempt charities are politically charged or biased.
Does it still sound like a good idea?
I thought that was pretty clear.
“Attempting to influence an election–any election–is a disqualifier. That makes you a lobbyist.”
Lobbying and attempting to influence an election are two different things. My understanding is the restriction imposed on tax-exempt organizations is very specific: they cannot specifically attempt to influence an election, such as by endorsing a candidate. Any individual or organization is allowed to attempt to persuade their elected representatives (ie. lobbying) over any particular issue. Non-profit organizations, including religious ones, do this frequently and they are within their rights to do so.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and PostRank – Politics, Jeff Musall. Jeff Musall said: RT @pr_politics: Can We Please Just Tax the Churches Already? http://bit.ly/4rsBf8 #postrank #politics [...]
Not outraged, GD, though I am a bit appalled at the level of managerial misconduct and board ineptitude that has been displayed even through what is currently known. And I thought perhaps you should make yourself more aware of it before declaring that ACORN keeps its books in order- you may well end up with egg on your face when all of the investigations are through.
Jefferson, sorry if that was unclear. The passage you quoted stops well short of demanding the church's response in this case. There's a good bit of daylight between correcting people and ostracizing them, and there's no way you can torture “dump the poor rather than accept a sinner” from Christ's teachings.
The passage certainly doesn't single out homosexuality among the many other sins Christians feel less compelled to confront. Show me the church that will refuse spousal benefits for a wife who's a known gossip, or for a husband who dishonors his parents.
Your argument strikes me as a disingenuous attempt to duck responsibility for your opinions. Oh, I love homosexuals to death, and I wish I could treat them better, but the Bible gives me no choice! I'm a victim!
Please. I know you hold yourself to a higher standard on most other subjects.
[...] Can We Please Just Tax the Churches Already? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
No, Jefferson, but I will agree with you that IF a church lobbies or campaigns, it should lose its tax exemption, AND IF any other tax exempt violates the rules they do too. You seem to be saying that if one group breaks the law, all groups should be punished…..
Yes, lobbying and campaigning are different restricted activities. They are often lumped together, as the IRS says:
“Political activities and legislative activities (commonly referred to as lobbying) are two different things and are subject to two different sets of rules.”
Here's the rule.
“The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. “
Note how broadly “political activity” is defined.
“”Influencing legislation”
A taxable expenditure includes amounts used to attempt to influence legislation:
1.
By affecting public opinion, or
2.
By communicating with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any other government official or employee who may participate in formulating the legislation.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council or similar governing body, or the public by way of referendum, constitutional amendment, or the like. The word action includes the introduction, enactment, defeat, or repeal of legislation. Actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies are not legislation. Therefore, expenditures made to influence action by these bodies are not attempts to influence legislation.
School boards, housing authorities, sewer and water districts, zoning boards, and other similar federal, state, ort local special purpose bodies, whether elective or appointive, are considered administrative bodies.
A proposed treaty required to be submitted by the President to the Senate for its advice and consent will be considered legislation being considered by, or to be submitted imminently to, a legislative body at the time the President’s representative begins to negotiation its position with the parties to the proposed treaty.”
LOL, no lefty blogger would ever vote for me, you overestimate my appeal.
we agree for once.
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where in your quotation from the IRS rules were it says that money used to “influence legislation” is considered a taxable expenditure, much less grounds for complete revocation of tax-exempt status. It seems to support what I said: that tax exempt organization are prohibited from getting involved in a campaign for or against a candidate, but aren't prohibited from legislative activities. However, it appears you got the information about “taxable expenditures” from somewhere. I'd like to see it in context. Can you point me to that? In any case, even if it is true that organizations can be taxed for those expenditures, that is different than saying that their tax-exempt status should be revoked.
I took at look at this IRS factsheet: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=15471…
It does appear that there is some gray area in the sense that if a tax-exempt organizations makes a statement, even if it is completely issue-oriented, regarding an issue that separates the two candidates, and if the statement is close to an election, then it could be considered a violation. But none of that is true in this case.
I should have used quotes or blockquotes to clarify. Here's the section on influencing elections:
And here is the section on legislation:
BTW, a church can do some lobbying if they file a Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible IRC Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation. Do you think any churches have done so? I suppose we could ask the IRS. Is it your contention that churches and other tax exempt organizations should be allowed to lobby?
As your link also notes:
I think it would be difficult to argue that a “substantial” part of the activities of the Catholic church is lobbying. Sure, maybe they are supposed to fill out a form to do the lobbying that they do. I have no clue if they do or not, and in my opinion that's a pretty minor detail.
So I think we've established that non-profits can engage in lobbying without losing their tax exempt status. So on to the question of what they *should* be allowed to do:
“Is it your contention that churches and other tax exempt organizations should be allowed to lobby?”
Yes. An organization should have the right to look out for its own interests, which includes arguing for or against legislation. They should be subject to any other rules that apply to lobbying, but shouldn't be forbidden from doing it.
and I think it cheapens the “religious” message when it's “praise the Lord and vote for McCain.” It also thus uses taxpayer money to campaign for a candidate. No problem? Then let's have publicly funded elections. Out in the open. Taxpayer money for political campaigns.
I feel like we keep talking past each other. I'm making a distinction between campaigning and lobbying, as the IRS does. No, “Praise the Lord and vote for McCain” is not OK. “We oppose [or support] XYZ legislation” is OK.
(As a side note, I want to clarify that I don't feel strongly that religious organizations should have tax-exempt status in the first place. I don't know that they should be put into the same category as other charities. However, if we do give them tax-exempt status, that status shouldn't be conditioned on them keeping their mouths shut with regards to legislation that they feel affects them.)
EDIT: Sorry, I corrected a minor typo above that probably will contribute to the confusion.
“You seem to be saying that if one group breaks the law, all groups should be punished…..”
Not at all. I'm saying that MANY tax-exempt organizations lobby Congress. Every example I gave you has lobbied Congress.
Dr. J.
We all sin. Some continually search themselves in accordance with the Bible, and others do not. If we do that and correct the sinful conditions we find – we are forgiven, and are told to “depart and sin no more”. If we do not, we remain in that sin and rish being lost. A lie is a sin. If you ask for forgiveness with a true heart – you are forgiven. Homosexuality is a sin. If you ask for forgiveness with a true heart – you are forgiven. With both instances, if you return to that state (leave and continue to lie, or leave and continue to live the homosexual lifestyle), you are right back where you started.
I hold that Biblical standard for all sin, J.
This isn't about what Jefferson wants or does not want. This is about what God wants for His people.
Many congregations out there do how THEY feel is right, and worship how THEY feel is right. They even pick and choose the parts of the Bible that fit THEIR lives. They fail to realize that they are being arrogant to think that they know better than God. It's all in there – all anyone has to do is look.
Jefferson, I understand the “unrepentant sinner” argument, and it doesn't quite go to my point. Would you support denying insurance benefits to a spouse who's an inveterate fibber or an unrepentant gossip? If so, you can at least claim to be applying your expansive reading of the Bible consistently.
…that is, consistently with yourself. No church that I'm aware of takes the hard line against gossip that the Catholics in this story take against homosexuality. They will probably agree in the abstract that all sins are created equal and so forth, but in practice they don't badger gossips like they do gays. Surely they're not all out of step but you.
I truly can't speak for the Catholics, J.
I have yet to hear a bishop or pope say that gossip is permitted – or lying, or murder, or any other sinful act. If the Catholic church were to come out and say that any of those we're ok, but homosexuality is wrong – then they'd be hyprocrits. But the Bible does have a problem with same-sex marriage, J. It SPECIFICALLY says man-woman, and specifically condemns homosexuality. You want a Church to ok that through employment or contracts. Well, they just can't do that, nor should they be expected to.
And yes, homosexuality IS the same as gossip (backbiting, it's called in the Bible) and all other sin.
If the Catholic church were to come out and say that any of those we're ok, but homosexuality is wrong – then they'd be hypocrites.
Actions speak louder than words, and in their actions Catholics as well as Protestants say exactly that.
Well…. you asked me to “Show me the church that will refuse spousal benefits for a wife who's a known gossip, or for a husband who dishonors his parents.”.
I will show you a Church that follows the Bible – that speaks where it speaks and is silent where it is silent.
They refuse “spousal rights” to those who do not fit the qualifications as laid our in the Bible.
They allow “spousal rights' to those who qualify per the Bible.
They call out all sin, especially from their own members.
It's called the Lord's Church or the Church of Christ.
Okay, how many unrepentant gossips did they drop from their insurance rolls last year?
No requirement in the Bible for health insurance.
There IS a requirement that we are not to perpetuate sin or condone it.
If there is a market for health insurance for homosexual couples, then why not start the company yourself? You can serve the needs of homosexuals and become a millionaire. It is perfectly legal for an insurance company to do that right now. Nothing stopping you if you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps George Soros can bankroll it for you. My point….. It can be done now. Homosexuals can make things legally binding through an attorney right now.
As I've said so many times before. This isn't about what homosexuals want or can get legally.
This is about the raising of a sexual fetish to normality. This has been the tactic of the left since, well, forever.
Jefferson, I'm happy to talk about homosexuals, but I'm still focused on your claim that the Catholics had no choice but to dump the poor. You have not made a convincing case that theology requires it, nor have you shown Christians taking a comparably hard line with respect to other sins.
I think I've given you enough chances to defend the point, and you're neither succeeding nor backing off of it. So I'm going to stop badgering you about it.
Once again, Dr. J…. I cannot speak for the Catholic Church… They've got many issues within that are not Biblically in line.
Should they stop their social work if “they don't get their way”?
Absolutely not!!!!! Social work is not for “them”. It's Christ's command to do, regardless.
(And I think that was your main point, which I obviously missed)
They are to help members of the Church first, and then everyone else in the community – which includes homosexuals. But you have to remember one thing. If any of their work is done in such a manner that condones or furthers the homosexual cause (as normal acceptable behavior) then they cannot be expected to do it.
Separation of Church and State doesn't only cover the government touting religion – it also covers the government impeding religion.