Question of the Day
Should religious organizations that produce “religious” materials preaching about the role of government lose their tax-exempt status?
This discussion was started by Geezer in the Evan Q. is Evil thread, but I think it deserves a wider audience.
I just got around to reading it.
The just-fell-in-sewage factor re:EQ has been well-expressed, so let me highlight the chunk I found useful. It’s about the Focus on the Family materials with the “Truth Project,” a name so obviously creepy a novelist would reject it as too ominous-sounding (emphasis mine below):
—-
“The 9th and 10th lessons, done on weeks 10 and 11 in the small group cycle, are entitled “The State: Whose Law?” and “The American Experiment: Stepping Stones”.
“The first of these lessons delves into God’s purpose for government and how God intends us to interact with the State (i.e. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.) and with our government authority.
“This lesson recognizes the authority of government but limits the depths to which God intended the government arm to reach.
“It really contradicts the idea of a large, all powerful big brother government that controls many aspects of daily life and confiscates property from the people and places God at the head above any elected officials.
“The concept that God created everything and therefore government should be subservient to Him is sometimes hard for us to swallow but an important point nonetheless.
“The second of these two focus points is … a look at the founding of America from a Biblical perspective and quite frankly, it simply takes facts that have long been buried by historical revisionism and makes them plain.
“Our founders, despite popular opinion, were extremely devout Christians in almost every case and they believed that the land we call home was divine intervention and that our government ought to be divinely inspired.”
——
Question for group discussion: Should “religious” materials preaching about the role of government lose their tax-exempt status?
No. Churches may discuss political concepts tax-free. It’s only when they promote individual candidates or legislation that they become liable for taxes.
Evan and Kenny’s study group is repellent but it is tax exempt.
“Evan and Kenny’s study group is repellent but it is tax exempt.”
Puck: That wasn’t my question. My question was, should it be? Why should organizations that push political philosophies be tax-exempt?
It is one thing to use the pulpit to advocate for the legitimate civil rights interests of your congregation and it is quite another to advocate for a rethinking of the basic principles of American government. The Focus in the Family stuff from the EQ post is part and parcel of the Dominionist bent of some of the religious right.
If you are trying to rewrite the basic philosophy of the US government to make it a more God-centered one, you should be taxed. Because you’ve become a think tank or activist group instead of a church.
No. I think churches should be tax exempt, and I think discussing political philosophy falls within the pastoral role. But when you throw the authority of the church behind recommendations for a particular candidate or legislation, that is when you cross from the spiritual realm to the material, and taxes should apply. I think the current law has it right.
The Focus on the Family series is clearly full of dominionist dog whistles that speak directly to current politics. But I wonder if that is what the Romans heard when the early Christians spoke of the Kingdom of God.
While simply yakking about that stuff in coded language shouldn’t cross the IRS line, it should earn them a spot on both IRS and DHS watch lists.
My opinion is that we should tax churches and be done with it. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it.
I like having the churches (mostly) out of our elections and out of lobbying. Without the tax exemption we’d have even more theocracy.
I’d be fine with that, really. I sent some articles recently to my local city councilpeople about efforts in Boston to get “voluntary payments” from local non-profits to help cover the costs of supporting them with water, wastewater, police, fire and all of the other city services they consume without having to pay into the pot. They are capturing millions in voluntary payments from these non-profits just by asking for it.
Puck has a good point @2:49 but I’d rather tax all churches, and if not prevent them from sending the funds to Rome, Jerusalem or Mecca or where ever the cash gets laundered.
Puck: I’m not sure that’s true (I’m not sure it isn’t, either). But it’s pretty obvious that pastors and priests of many faiths tread the legal line with their political talk, so it’s not as if they have no influence under the current set of rules.
My proposal to tax religious institutions isn’t all that simple — they shouldn’t have to pay taxes on money spent on charity work, for example, because it’s a boon to society. But there’s a big difference between feeding the poor and paying the electric bill for the broadcasting equipment.
So many churches are knee deep in politics it’s sickening. I say strip them of their tax exempt status and make them cover contraception.
Three points here:
1) I’d argue that the appearance of a political candidate (of any party) in the pulpit of any church, or referenced by the presiding clergy after that person has declared for election should be enough to invalidate tax-exempt status.
2) In the actual Evan-Kenny example, let’s point out that it was a church member (Evan) who went off the reservation here, not the church itself. I’ve been to Catholic study groups where they discussed whether US immigration laws trumped God’s laws about freedom to seek a better life, and heard reports a few years back from “sanctuary” churches and communities. You may like one better than the other, but they are analogous: the church is encouraging dicussion of a civil political issue but not endorsing a candidate.
3) That said, the Mormons and the Catholic Church should both have lost tax-exempt status for various expenditures to defeat same-sex marriage propositions around the country.
“My opinion is that we should tax churches and be done with it. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it.”
It was a scam from day one.
Do we really want to be paying for other people’s religion?? and religious excesses??
@cassandra m:
(1) Originally, the Establishment Clause did not prohibit the States from establishing an official religion.
(2) In fact, the Establishment Clause was understood to prevent the U.S. government from interfering with the States’ official religions.
(3) In 1787, 6 States had official religions.
(4) Later, both Jefferson and Madison wrote of separations of religion and government. Madison was the principal framer of the First Amendment.
(5) The Fourteenth Amendment changed the relationship between the U.S. government and the States.
(6) The Supreme Court held that, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Establishment Clause applies to the States.
(7) The Court’s argument is lacking. How can a clause that people understood to protect the States from the U.S. government suddenly limit the States’ power?
(8) Regardless, any establishment of religion would need to respect the Free Exercise Clause. This is a personal right. Though, laws of general applicability require no religious exemption (Employment Div. v. Smith). But, a law that favors one (or more) religion(s) plainly is not a law of general applicability.
For everyone: The IRS should better enforce the ban on conducting political campaign activities. 501(c)(3) organizations may lobby (within certain financial parameters). Technically, this is what most dudes with sweet hats do from the pulpit. “We need an exemption from the Affordable Care Act!” Not “Vote for Romney so he will give us an exemption from the Affordable Care Act!” Also, note that this costs no money. In my opinion, there is no (substantive) difference between the two statements (at least in a two-horse race)
Then there is the issue of freedom of speech… How does the implicit subsidy affect that right? Technically, Congress cannot “buy” constitutional rights without limit. But, thus far, 501(c)(3) is still in effect.
Sorry, there is a lot of thinking out loud there.