« “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.
79 Responses to “Can We Please Just Tax the Churches Already?”
Totally agree on this Jazz.
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.
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.
.
Great post Jazz. Right on the money!
And feel free to ignore any “in vogue” hyperbolic nonsensical comments.
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 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.
For once I agree with you Jazz.
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.
GreenDreams–
Do you think there would be any kind of disruptive gap in service to the needy?
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.
Social fascists? Isn't that what Stalin called those not with him on the far left?
Right on Jazz!
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.
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. “
Well said. I think the clergy loses a certain amount of their stature when they venture very far into matters politic. I believe that happened much less often back in the day.
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!”
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.
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 a good way to do so,” you must have a different edition than I do.
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.
[...] Can We Please Just Tax the Churches Already? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Exactly.
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.
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.
Wow, I find myself looking yet once more for a polite way to say “f you.” Gay scourge? Get a life.
My initial reading of your “gay scourge” comment was just of you being sarcastic. Was that correct?
other groups will step in where the Washington Catholic dioscese exits. There is big money given to this archdiocese. It can go elsewhere and services delivered. However, thiss 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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).
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.)
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.