An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

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.

  • Totally agree on this Jazz.
  • roro80
    Agreed entirely Jazz. Great article. The "love the sinner hate the sin" thing is supposed to apply to all people, right? I mean, doesn't the church believe that every human being is inherently a sinner? They're getting awfully picky about the sinners they're willing to help and the sinners they're not.
  • casualobserver
    Totally disagree on this, Jazz. You are not a libertarian if you feel a vendor has to accept the contract terms of the customer. If there is evidence the CC did not perform on contracts for which they received payment, fine, sue them for breach. However, on a prospective basis, this vendor is simply declining to be engaged further. That ain't blackmail......that's a logical freedom of business association.
  • "Can we please just tax the churches already?" Not just "no", but "HELL NO." And I'm disturbed by your off-handed dismissal of the Establishment Clause which is a linchpin of individual liberty. Why don't we emasculate the 5th amendment while we're at it, too?

    I believe you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope, on this one. It's abundantly clear that the state - with its neo- tolerance at all costs no matter what the costs - is blackmailing the millenniums old bedrock ideology of most of the Western world - Christianity - with threats of non-inclusion & intolerance in the state's Utopian world of inclusion & tolerance.

    But that's not hypocritical, or anything.

    Yet, the Church would be a laughing stock if the mis-guided application of 'love the sinner but hate the sin' were to undermine its core philosophy by allowing whatever aberrant behavior, in vogue from one generation to the next, into its inner sanctum.

    Instead of moving farther left into social fascism, with more taxation for the purpose of social engineering, the ideal solution would be to tax everyone less, have the Church to remove its hand from the public trough, and let the individual decide how his charity shall be distributed.

    More liberty, Jazz, not less.
    .
  • JSpencer
    Great post Jazz. Right on the money! - (all "in vogue" hyperbolic nonsensical comments notwithstanding ;-)
  • Leonidas
    I have absolutely no problem taxing churches and other non-profits, In fact I think they all should be taxed and given free reign to speak out on issues whenever and on whatever subject they want. I think these organizations have allowed their voice to be somewhat bought off by preferential tax treatment. I have no problem with a minister instructing their congregation on who they should vote for and what referendums to vote for and against. Of course its up to the members to decide if they go along with the recommendations.
  • I think most Christians would like to think of their clergy as something more than political pundits to be listened to or not. The clergy is in a position of extreme trust by many, and political proselytizing should not be a part of their religious teaching, IMO.
  • imavettoo
    For once I agree with you Jazz.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    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.


    As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church does help tens of thousands of people. So, as a pragmatist, I'm in favor of exempting the Catholic Church from anything that would prevent it from helping tens of thousands of people.

    The Catholic Church's homophobia is stupid and--as a practical matter--laughably hypocritical. Stupid. Laughable. Hypocritical. But the people who need their help shouldn't be denied.

    And I don't have any high-flown rhetoric that will make me forget about them.
  • I have no problem with the good work Catholic Charities does. But I know, and they know that there are hungry hordes of other capable nonprofits who will be GLAD to have those contracts, and will likely deliver the services just as well.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    GreenDreams--

    Do you think there would be any kind of disruptive gap in service to the needy?
  • casualobserver
    Good luck running on that platform, Leo! Your vote total would make Bob Barr look like a formidable POTUS candidate in comparison. No doubt you'd pick up 13,286 lefty blogger and atheist votes and then come to a screeching halt.

    And don't forget the CC has had this position just a wee bit longer than you existed on the face of this earth. Just because some would declare this to be a "political" position, hardly changes the fact that millions of others accept this to be a "moral" position, close-minded or otherwise.

    By the way, I'm turning in all the liberals here in to the Ebeneezer Baptist Church for suggesting they lose their tax exemption for all the "politiking" they have been indulging in for the past 50 years.
  • elrod
    Social fascists? Isn't that what Stalin called those not with him on the far left?
  • Right on Jazz!
  • JeffersonDavis
    Wow, Jazz.... You really riled up the left-wingers with this one.
    Great article, as usual..... But I respectfully disagree.

    If you want to tax all NONPROFIT institutions, then go ahead. Just be consistent with that and don't simply put the crosshairs on religious institutions.

    Should Catholic institutions refuse to minister or help homosexuals in time of need? Absolutely not. Christ preached differently. Should Catholics be forced to accept homosexuality or hire them? Absolutely not. I'm sure Planned Parenthood would turn a anti-abortion person from employment as well. As would the Red Cross refuse to hire a person who enjoys seeing people suffer.

    We can't have it both ways here.
  • ProfElwood
    I thought that churches were tax-exempt because they were non-profits, not because they were churches. Am I wrong in thinking that there are non-profit organizations that lobby, you know, like churches don't.

    Also, it's always good to back to the source, I think Jazz missed this part:
    "The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics. "
  • JSpencer
    I think most Christians would like to think of their clergy as something more than political pundits to be listened to or not. The clergy is in a position of extreme trust by many, and political proselytizing should not be a part of their religious teaching, IMO. ~ GreenDreams


    Well said. I think the clergy loses a certain amount of their stature when they venture very far into matters politic.

  • Dr J
    Should Catholics be forced to accept homosexuality or hire them? Absolutely not.

    I'm leery of anti-discrimination employment laws in general, since employment decisions are fundamentally about discriminating.

    But that doesn't seem to be quite the issue here. The church's nightmare scenario seems to be having to extend equal spousal benefits to gay partners, on whom they've not necessarily ever set eyes. Meaning someone gay is already on the payroll, and the church would potentially be obliged to take on a new financial burden to support a spouse they disapprove of.

    It's unfortunate the government feels the need to micromanage these sorts of issues, but it's also hard to muster much sympathy for the church. "Let us make our petty gestures of disapproval," they growl, "or the poor will get it!"
  • JeffersonDavis
    Christians are supposed to not support or condone certain things. It's in the rule book. Most congregations and denominations adhere to that same Book for the most part. They seem to agree on the part about homosexuality.

    With that said, American Christians are also civic creatures who have a duty to vote.
    If a Christian (who says they believe the same as the congregation does) votes for someone who represents the very opposite of those beliefs, they are violating their principles.
  • Dr J
    Christians are supposed to not support or condone certain things. It's in the rule book.

    If your rule book summarizes Jesus's teaching as "you must decry your neighbor's sins, and sticking it to the poor is one good way," you must have a different edition than I.
  • While I don't agree with the Church's stance, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "Blackmail". Blackmail is when you threaten to do something that harms the other party in order to get something you want. It is not when you threaten to stop doing something beneficial for the other party. That's like saying that a woman is committing blackmail when she threatens to leave a cheating husband.

    Both the church and the government is free to do as it pleases. The church can stop providing services, and the government is free to stop giving them contracts. However, with regards to the contracts:

    "Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars’ worth this year through his committee."

    It's worth remembering that since the church is a non-profit, they derive no financial benefit from such contracts. Of course, the church I'm sure would like to keep those contracts in order to keep doing good in the community.

    "“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,”

    I'm guessing there was a reason the Church was chosen for those contracts, like maybe the many volunteers and faith-motivated individuals that ensure they get the most bang for the buck. But, with that said, it's up to the church and the law-makers to come to some sort of an agreement or not.

    As for whether church's should continue to have tax-exempt status, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't see this story as evidence that they shouldn't.
  • ProfElwood
    Exactly.
  • DaMav
    The sword cuts both ways. Apparently the city officials are willing to risk services to thousands of poor people in order to force an ideological point down the throats of the Catholic Church. How irresponsible is that? Offering up thousands of the most vulnerable in the city on the altar of the homosexual agenda hardly seems a defensible action, unless you consider the poorest members of the community to be expendable in pursuit of your goals. Why can't the churches simply be exempted?
  • Nonprofit isn't the point. There are nonprofit designations for organizations that lobby, such as the AMA, Labor and Industry trade associations. They're not tax exempt. If any church wants to lobby government, they are not qualified as a nonpolitical tax exempt religious organization.
  • 'since the church is a non-profit, they derive no financial benefit from such contracts'

    Not so. Every contract requires employees to manage and oversee. The contract includes overhead, and that's what a nonprofit lives on. More contracts means more staff, more resources and growth.

    'many volunteers and faith-motivated individuals that ensure they get the most bang for the buck.'

    everyone who bids on a contract has to disclose what % of the grant funds will get to the intended recipients. Every one is expected these days to also have matching funds. Churches may donate "in kind" by assigning staff not paid by project funds, not charging rent, donating utilities, and donating expertise. Again, the churches have something to offer, but there are many nonprofits, both religious and secular, who compete for those contracts. It isn't like anyone has special technology or techniques here. Baptists, Catholics or Salvation Army can all run a soup kitchen (or find an apartment for a natural disaster victim).
  • Same comment. These contracts are extremely desirable to many organizations. This isn't going to hurt the poor at all. I guarantee that if a million is authorized to run a program, there will be many groups willing and able to help. Nice try at a heart-tugging argument though.
  • Father_Time
    Well, I am torn between what I believe and what I don't believe.

    The catholic church is a political entity. They even have their own country! To say that they are not, is completely false. To engage in or politics here, could even be considered an act of war, but the Vatican has no military capability, so, nobody feels threatened by their manipulations.

    However the gay scourge must me opposed and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    So tax the catholic church. They will pay it and continue anyway.
  • Gegenschattenbild
    Wow, I find myself looking yet once more for a polite way to say "f you." Gay scourge? Get a life.
  • JSpencer
    My initial reading of your "gay scourge" comment was just of you being sarcastic. Was that correct?
  • archangel
    other groups will step in where the Washington Catholic diocese exits. There is big money given to this archdiocese. It can go elsewhere and services delivered. However, this move by the church has to be weighed against the death blow to Catholic Charities made by the by now near billion dollar pay-outs to those harmed by priests. The way the church works is not to keep all the money they are given by parish collections, some goes to Rome, some goes to the Diocese and is then, according to reward, SOME is given back to the dioceses for various. The deal is the most shady imaginable, with no annual report and no transparency of funds for/to parishioners. It has ever been this way since I was a little girl. One question to ask, is would you allow a multi-jillion dollar intake institution to never reveal their books? Interesting to know how the city treats this set-aside by the church when they make their grants to them.
  • casualobserver
    By the way, an IRS group exemption ruling hardly attempts to abridge 1st Amendment rights. Group exemption organizations are free to express whatever belief they wish to......and act according thereto.

    The line is drawn for direct political activity.....you know, campaigning and electioneering......like registering voters. So, think about this........

    The Catholic Church is a c3............so is the ACORN Institute.........when you can explain why you're not agitated over their tax exemption, I'll listen to your argument for pulling it for the CC.



  • CO, ACORN is not tax exempt. The ACORN Institute is, but does not engage in restricted activities. This is not unusual AT ALL, and your attempt to paint it in a dark light is misleading at best. Here's a totally nonpolitical example. National Geographic Society is tax exempt. National Geographic Publications is a tax paying for profit organization. They sell books and DVDs. There is nothing nefarious about it--to the contrary, they are carefully keeping tax exempt and taxable activities separate, just like ACORN.
  • CStanley
    Respectfully, Dr. E, I think you are mistaken in some of those comments. Catholic Charities is a separate 501(c)3 organization and its funds have nothing to do with the general Church funds where certain archdioceses have had to pay out the massive lawsuit settlements. And like all 501(c)3 entities, Catholic Charities is required to make public its audited financial statement each year (here is the link to the statements from '07 and '08).

    As for money put in the parish collection plate and given directly to the archdiocese (we have an annual archbishop's appeal to support various missions here in Atlanta), I guess some parishes and dioceses are doing a better job with transparency than others. We receive an annual summary of revenue and expenses from our parish, and the archdiocese posts general information online and will provide more detailed statements upon request. They've also pledged that none of the money donated to the archdiocesan appeal has been or will be used to settle lawsuits.
  • archangel
    thanks CStanley and nice to see you. You're blessed to be in a parish/diocese that reveals financial line items and where the money is going specifically and projected budgets for future. I wish it were so for all.
  • CStanley
    Indeed, Dr. E. I feel we've been blessed with a very honorable archbishop in Wilton Gregory, and his predecessor was upstanding as well. I guess that's why I get a bit defensive even though I realize that criticism is warranted in many locales but I don't want a broad brush used.
  • archangel
    appreciate your insights CS.
  • GD,

    Yes, I see your point that even non-profits have an interest in keeping
    government contracts. However, even so there must have been reason that the
    government went with the church for the contracts in the first place
    (probably because they can do the work that needed to be done for the least
    amount of money), so it's not clear that there is some other entity waiting
    to take the place of the church and perform the same duties at the same
    price if the contract falls apart.

    So, this is a dispute between two parties which have a mutual interest in
    working together, but both of which also have their own interests to look
    out for. I don't see any "blackmail" or any other abuse of power by either
    side in that equation. If the two parties can't resolve their differences
    than so be it.
  • I'm afraid I'm in the disagree column, Jazz. If CC feels that working for the city will require them to violate religious principles fundamental to their identity, then I think they're within their rights to refuse to continue to do business with the city. It shouldn't affect their tax status.

    At the same time, I hope that some other entity is prepared to come in and undertake such massive programs, and has no conflict.
  • CStanley
    carefully keeping tax exempt and taxable activities separate, just like ACORN.

    Well, hopefully we'll soon see about that (if the financial records haven't already been laundered before the raid.)
  • DLS
    There should be no favored and disfavored winners and losers with taxation. There should be neutrality.

    It actually has little to do with politics (and leftist hatred of the Religious Right or any moral, anti-radical stance churches may take, as opposed to politically correct behavior and even "liberation theology" and related things like protesting the military or nuclear weapons or harboring illegal aliens by the Religious Left and lefties barely posing as religious as a facade for their political activism).
  • DLS
    ACORN -- ha, ha, ha, ha. I'm surprised they haven't taken up residence in black Baptist "vote Dem" churches (not limited to those featuring radical preachers like Obama's old rad-lib firebrand in Chicago), and claimed religious exemption from taxes, or why other lefty groups haven't tried forming their own churches with this in mind.

    (I'm surprised the "medical marijuana" advocates haven't tried imitating the Coptics or brought in Indians from the Southwest, and their hallucinogens, and presented themselves as religious organizations, too.)
  • I hope so too, but individual lawbreaking, such as embezzlement which is alleged in the article at your link, has nothing to do with tax exemption. Employee theft is the leading cause of corporate bankruptcies, and plagues nonprofits as well as for profits. And of course you have no basis in fact to question whether "laundering" has taken place. After all, there were no suspicious fires like at Cheney's office.
  • There likely are reasons CC was chosen, including past performance, staffing and facilities etc. But I assure you, when a RFP (request for proposals) comes out in Washington, there are plenty of takers. If CC wants to get out of that line, that's fine with me. I prefer secular charities anyway.
  • CStanley
    Actually the 'basis in fact' for questioning whether laundering has taken place was in the basis for the warrant for the raid. And the investigation isn't about an individual embezzling, it's about the alleged coverup of the embezzlement (which could extend to defrauding taxpayers) by the organization's board members.
  • "Coverup"? Where did you get that nugget? It's not what the article you linked says. Corporations, whether for-profit or nonprofit are not obligated to disclose embezzlement, and many do not as it could affect their ability to raise money (from stockholders and donors respectively). It is quite possible for embezzlement to occur without "defrauding taxpayers" unless 100% of ACORN's funding is from taxpayers. It isn't, unless you mean voluntary donations by individual taxpayers. For example, if a million was skimmed off of what the Democratic party gave ACORN, the party could sue, or press charges. But the idea that every line of their financials has to be disclosed or there's a "coverup" is not how it works. You should know that, since the payments to victims of priestly abuses by your church was kept secret for many years.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Nonprofit IS the point. If you yank one tax-exempt status, you must yank them all.
    Boy Scouts of America is one such tax-exempt group.

    You cannot single out Churches. That's my only point.
    If you want to yank ALL tax-exemptions, the do so.
  • JeffersonDavis
    "If your rule book summarizes Jesus's teaching as "you must decry your neighbor's sins, and sticking it to the poor is one good way," you must have a different edition than I."

    I agree. My "edition" does not say "stick it to the poor", it says help the less fortunate. I do.
    I also says I am not to stand idely by and allow sin to be left unchecked.

    Timothy 4:1-5
    "So with God and Christ as witnesses, I command you to preach God's message. Do it willingly, even if it isn't the popular thing to do. You must correct people and point out their sins."

    I hope your "rulebook" has that in it as well.
  • CStanley
    You obviously haven't been following the Rathke story, GD, which goes well beyond that one article I cited. You'll need to do your own research to get up to speed, but here's one brief recap. The coverup that I'm referring to was that only a small number of the executives knew of the embezzlement by the founder's brother, and they cut a deal with him without even notifying the board of directors. The deal specified a payback of close to a million dollars, but now there are some reliable sources saying that the amount embezzled was actually closer to $5 million.

    Frankly I find it breathtaking that you don't have a problem with organizations covering up internal crimes from their donors either, but this was on another order of magnitude because even the board of the organization was prevented from knowing about it (which resulted in the perpetrator remaining in employment of the organization for a number of years, and never facing any legal consequences for his actions either.)

    I should add that in my initial comment I misstated this as a coverup 'by the organization's board members' when what I meant to write was that the coverup was perpetrated by the executives of the organization who withheld information from the board.
  • Dr J
    You must correct people and point out their sins.

    Then with regard to this one particular sin, we can all take pride in Christians' overachivement.
  • Father_Time
    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.
  • JeffersonDavis
    "Then with regard to this one particular sin, we can all take pride in Christians' overachivement."


    ? ? ? ? ?
  • JeffersonDavis
    "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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • Dr J
    Jefferson, sorry if that was unclear. The passage you quoted stops well short of demanding the response the church offered 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.
  • 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.
  • Leonidas
    Good luck running on that platform, Leo! Your vote total would make Bob Barr look like a formidable POTUS candidate in comparison. No doubt you'd pick up 13,286 lefty blogger and atheist votes and then come to a screeching halt.


    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:

    "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. "

    And here is the section on legislation:

    "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."

    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:

    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.


    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 and is a matter for the IRS to resolve.

    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.
  • JeffersonDavis
    "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.
  • JeffersonDavis
    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.
  • Dr J
    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.
  • JeffersonDavis
    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.
  • Dr J
    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.
  • JeffersonDavis
    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.
  • Dr J
    Okay, how many unrepentant gossips did they drop from their insurance rolls last year?
  • JeffersonDavis
    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.
  • Dr J
    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.
  • JeffersonDavis
    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.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC