quote:Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition.
quote:Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly — a sometimes murky line.
The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday's initiative and "will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."
The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.
I personally have no problem with churches supporting candidates. But they can't do that and be tax-exempt. They have to choose.
And it looks like this group of churches has chosen.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The church I used to attend did indeed make that choice - they refused tax-exempt status so they woudl have no government oversight, period.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Wow. It's been a frightening post week on the religion front.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Personally, I think the rules against them supporting a candidate are stupid. If a religious organization feels that a particular candidate's views are against their religion, they should be able to speak against that candidate (or for his/her opponent) as part of their religious freedom without being penalized.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I agree, Lupus. But the other part of that is that I don't think any churches should be tax-exempt.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tax exemption is a benefit essentially subsidized by other taxpayers. Removing it isn't really a "penalty" so much as removing a benefit when the organization in question no longer qualifies.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: Personally, I think the rules against them supporting a candidate are stupid. If a religious organization feels that a particular candidate's views are against their religion, they should be able to speak against that candidate (or for his/her opponent) as part of their religious freedom without being penalized.
Ah, but they're not being penalized. They're having their benefits revoked.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Having their benefits revoked is a penalty. (Revoking benefits to organizations who don't qualify because they committed a given act IS a penalty for committing that act.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I leave my job, are they penalizing me by taking away my benefits?
If someone is getting some sort of financial assistance and then make enough so that they are no longer eligible, are they punished by not getting that assistance any more?
I don't think so.
Political organizations are excluded from having tax exempt status. These churches decided to become political organizations. It seems like a clear case of the consequences of their decision to change their status.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Having their benefits revoked is a penalty. (Revoking benefits to organizations who don't qualify because they committed a given act IS a penalty for committing that act.)
A penalty for doing the very thing that they are asked not to do so they can get the benefits.
It's like this...
Me: I'll give you a piece of cake if you don't call me a buttface.
You: Okay, Buttface!
Me: And now you don't get any cake.
You: What I do?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If I leave my job, are they penalizing me by taking away my benefits?
Yes. It is a penalty that you deserve (since you are not earning those benefits...since you are no longer at work) but it is still a penalty.
I just don't think the churches deserve the penalty of loosing their benefits for speaking out about how their religious views impact their political ones.
quote:Political organizations are excluded from having tax exempt status. These churches decided to become political organizations.
No, they are religious organizations that have political views. Simply because they decide to share those political views once every 4 years does not mean they are no longer a religious organization.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes. It is a penalty that you deserve (since you are not earning those benefits...since you are no longer at work) but it is still a penalty.
So, you think that the people at my old job are punishing me for leaving?
quote:No, they are religious organizations that have political views. Simply because they decide to share those political views once every 4 years does not mean they are no longer a religious organization.
They are both a religious and a political organization.
One of those doesn't exclude them from tax exempt status, but the other does.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus:
quote:Political organizations are excluded from having tax exempt status. These churches decided to become political organizations.
No, they are religious organizations that have political views. Simply because they decide to share those political views once every 4 years does not mean they are no longer a religious organization.
And my friend's tax-exempt theatre organization is just a theatre organization. But if they share their political views, even once every 4 years, they lose their tax-exempt status. And so should any church or other tax-exempt group that does the same.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: A penalty for doing the very thing that they are asked not to do so they can get the benefits.
I would argue that the reason for non profits and religious organizations getting tax exempt status is not that they don't call people names, it is that they are providing a benefit to society with their charitable work. While the main goal of a business is the make a profit (hence the tax) non profits and religious organizations are there to help, not to make a financial profit.
I would argue that if they were aiming to make a financial profit...THAT would be doing the very thing that they were asked not to do, and should lead to a loss of tax exempt status.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
When you leave your job you are no longer an employee, because being an employee is all about working your job. When you stop having a low income then you are no longer in the class of low-income individuals, because being a low-income individual is all about your income.
But when the pastor of a church endorses a candidate, the church is still a church. If someone were to ask "What church do you go to?" and you said "The New Life Church" nobody would respond "No, that's a political organization. I meant what church do you go to." Everyone realizes that, regardless of what the pastor said, it is still a church - because it still has worship, is still about religion, and is consistent with the other things that make a church a church.
If a church actually became a political organization, like move-on.org, that'd be different. But that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about a church committing one particular political act. Lawmakers can legally define it as not a church for committing that act, but it still is a church.
....
The reason churches are tax-exempt is not because they are politically neutral. Churches are tax-exempt because they are churches, and presumably serve the community.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think you understand. Organizations can be any number of types. They can be religious, political, commercial, literary, etc. all at the same time.
These churches decisions to become political organizations doesn't mean that they are no longer churches. They are still religious organizations. They've just also became political ones.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The reason churches are tax-exempt is not because they are politically neutral. Churches are tax-exempt because they are churches, and presumably serve the community.
How can you serve the community when you demonstrate your politics to be specifically one way or the other?
That's not serving the community. That's serving the part of the community that shares your predilections.
Since the government deals with serving the entire community, as the entire community pays taxes, then so must organizations who are exempt from those taxes.
Otherwise, you're a private organization, and you should be taxed with the rest of them.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That's not serving the community. That's serving the part of the community that shares your predilections.
You could make the argument that a church does serve the needs of their denomination (whether it supports a candidate or not). The sermons at a LDS church serve the needs of the LDS community. The sermons at a Methodist church serve the needs of the Methodist community. HOWEVER, the overall goals of both churches are to serve the needs of the communities as a whole. The charitable and missionary work that they do are meant to help the entire community.
I think the same goes with if you bring politics into the church. Perhaps that sermon might meet the needs of the group that shares similar beliefs, but the goal of the organization is still to meet the needs of the community as a whole
*edit: fixed typo*
[ October 01, 2008, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, are you suggesting that any tax exempt non-profit should be able to do direct political advocacy without losing their status or is it just churches?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:HOWEVER, the overall goals or both churches are to serve the needs of the communities as a whole.
No, the overall goals of the churches are to serve the needs of the communities AS LONG AS they agree with them. Not all churches, certainly, but the churches that are being political now.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: So, are you suggesting that any tax exempt non-profit should be able to do direct political advocacy without losing their status or is it just churches?
Yes.
I think it should tie into their mission. For example in the case of the article, the churches were saying how Obama did not fit into their religious beliefs.
An anti AIDS organization could talk about how one candidate does not support AIDS research, and urge people to support his/her opponent.
The same could go for groups that fight poverty, or some other such thing.
Of course, I think you would have to be careful of how you went about it. It would be easy for a non profit to loose their way and become a political group first, and a non profit second (which could harm the non profit work that they do). Though, the same would go for a church. They would gave to be careful not to loose their way as well. If they go to far, they would likely loose many of their members.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So, are you suggesting that any tax exempt non-profit should be able to do direct political advocacy without losing their status or is it just churches?
A leadership member of any non-profit should be able to say that the non-profit prefers candidate A or candidate B, without losing benefits being given to it on the grounds that it serves the community. If the non-profit starts producing ads, putting out signs for a candidate, registering voters for a certain candidate, and acting generally like political organizations do, then that is a different story.
quote:No, the overall goals of the churches are to serve the needs of the communities AS LONG AS they agree with them. Not all churches, certainly, but the churches that are being political now.
I think most churches intend to serve the needs of EVERYONE - either by providing non-religious services (such as food for the poor) and/or by helping everyone understand the truth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, you think that the government should support partisan political groups?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The charitable and missionary work that they do are meant to help the entire community.
So if they were to spin their charitable work -- not their missionary work -- into another non-political organization, I'd have no problem letting that organization remain tax-exempt.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think churches should be able to support legislation and remain tax exempt-- but not politicians.
GO GO STATUS QUO.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, you think that the government should support partisan political groups?
I think we look at taxes in a different way. I don't see a tax exempt status as government support. The tax exempt status is allowing the organization to exist without financially supporting the government. They are supporting the community in other ways (through their non profit work). That is an extension of my belief that money belongs to those that earn it...not the government.
I don't think the primary goal of the organization should be political (ie where most of their money and time goes), but I think that non profits can have political views without going against their mission.
I also think that you can have political views supporting one group, while still serving the community as a whole with your charitable work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It doesn't make any sense to me for a church as a whole to be tax exempt if political organizations are not. I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. Some church activities could be taxed and some not. If the activities are spreading a message - political organizations do that. If the activity is fellowship for their members - country clubs do that. I think it would be possible for churches to form separate "offspring" organizations for their charitable work for the community as a whole that would be tax exempt.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How about taxing the proceeds that come to churches from their political activities.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't see a tax exempt status as government support.
When other political organizations have to pay taxes, it seems to me that the government is pretty clearly supporting the tax-exempt groups competing with them over them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How about taxing the proceeds that come to churches from their political activities.
When they are using their standing with their congregation as a basis for their political activity, all their congregation activities are political.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Using that logic, if there is a moment of charity work done, then all activities are also charitable, including any political rallies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Using that logic, if there is a moment of charity work done, then all activities are also charitable, including any political rallies.
I'm not sure how that follows. Could you explain?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If a single political statement can turn an charitable organization into a political one, then a single charitable act can turn a political organization into a charitable one.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's easy enough for churches to operate charities that can remain tax exempt.
I'm with Tom: the general, non-charity-related finances of a church should not be tax exempt. There's no really good reason for ALL of a church's finances to be tax exempt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If a single political statement can turn an charitable organization into a political one, then a single charitable act can turn a political organization into a charitable one.
Well, that misses a very important aspect of what I said, but okay? I'm not sure I see the problem with this.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If a single political statement can turn an charitable organization into a political one, then a single charitable act can turn a political organization into a charitable one.
Sure.
What's keeping them from being political and charitable and religious?
None of that, to me, suggests that they shouldn't be taxed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The central contention has nothing to do with politics; you don't think charities should be tax-exempt.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The central contention has nothing to do with politics; you don't think charities should be tax-exempt.
Not if they're politically biased, no.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The central contention has nothing to do with politics; you don't think charities should be tax-exempt.
Who are you referring to here? I don't see anyone in this thread that it could make sense as a response to.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you would judge which charities are politically biased and which are politically neutral?
The power to tax is the power to hobble and destroy. It is part of religious freedom to have churches out of the reach of the grabby hands of multiple levels of government. *waves flag*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So you would judge which charities are politically biased and which are politically neutral?
Probably by following the established rules, like not campaigning for or against a specific candidate.
quote:It is part of religious freedom to have churches out of the reach of the grabby hands of multiple levels of government.
Err...no it isn't. Tax exemption is not in any way guaranteed by the Constitution.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's easy enough for churches to operate charities that can remain tax exempt.
I'm with Tom: the general, non-charity-related finances of a church should not be tax exempt. There's no really good reason for ALL of a church's finances to be tax exempt.
Excepting that you'll be forcing a artificial division on the management of the their organization and increases in the work and expense to run it. There are real costs associated with that choice that you're ignoring.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a First Amendment issue. "..Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Taxing is a form control and way to destroy and restrict free exercise. You can tax something out of existence. The power of government is constitutionally curtailed from interfering.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It's a First Amendment issue. "..Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Taxing is a form control and way to destroy and restrict free exercise. You can tax something out of existence. The power of government is constitutionally curtailed from interfering.
No, it isn't. You just don't understand the law here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong. You don't understand or appreciate the concept of religious freedom.
*waves flag again*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Wait. Do I not understand the concept of religious freedom or do I not understand the constitutional law here?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm with Tom: the general, non-charity-related finances of a church should not be tax exempt. There's no really good reason for ALL of a church's finances to be tax exempt.
Well, I suspect that a large majority of Americans would agree that promoting spirituality, morality, and religion in general is a significant social good that churches provide too. That's a reason.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're wrong. You don't understand or appreciate the concept of religious freedom.
*waves flag again*
Participating in politics isn't religious.
I can get behind churches being tax-exempt from sticking to religious activities or non-partisan community service. But when a church begins taking sides on a political issue, it's not the 'free exercise of religion.'
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Congress would be curtailed from specifically taxing churches, I believe, but they aren't prevented from collecting any taxes they would collect on anyone else from churches, legally.
Even churches that are tax exempt pay things such as social security and unemployment taxes.
Numerous churches have chosen to be taxed in other areas as well, as noted in this thread.
Some (including very religious people) have argued that not taxing churches is unconstitutional, by supporting those institutions over non-religious ones, and by putting the gov't in the place of determining what is or is not a church.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:It's a First Amendment issue. "..Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
And the best way avoid respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is to treat it like every other organization out there.
EVERYONE is taxed. EVERY organization is taxed. Unless, of course, you agree to abide by a certain set of rules that the government has put in place.
You break those rules, you pay taxes. Simple.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Free speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right as well, but we tax organizations that organize for political speech.
Tresopax, a lot of people think that promoting a specific political party is a significant social good as well. And yet organizations whose purpose is to do that are taxed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Church claims that the revocation of its exemption violated its right to freely exercise its religion under both the First Amendment and the RFRA. To sustain its claim under either the Constitution or the statute, the Church must first establish that its free exercise right has been substantially burdened. See Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378, 384-85 (1990) ("Our cases have established that the free exercise inquiry asks whether gov- ernment has placed a substantial burden on the observation of a central religious belief or practice and, if so, whether a compelling governmental interest justifies the burden.") (in- ternal quotation marks and brackets omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), (b) ("Government shall not substantially bur- den a person's exercise of religion" in the absence of a compelling government interest that is furthered by the least restrictive means.). We conclude that the Church has failed to meet this test.
The Church asserts, first, that a revocation would threaten its existence. See Affidavit of Dan Little dated July 31, 1995 at ¶ 22, reprinted in App. at Tab 8 ("The Church at Pierce Creek will have to close due to the revocation of its tax exempt status, and the inability of congregants to deduct their contributions from their taxes."). The Church main- tains that a loss of its tax-exempt status will not only make its members reluctant to contribute the funds essential to its survival, but may obligate the Church itself to pay taxes.
The Church appears to assume that the withdrawal of a conditional privilege for failure to meet the condition is in itself an unconstitutional burden on its free exercise right. This is true, however, only if the receipt of the privilege (in this case the tax exemption) is conditioned
upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or ... denie[d] ... because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adher- ent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 493 U.S. at 391-92 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although its adver- tisements reflected its religious convictions on certain ques- tions of morality, the Church does not maintain that a with- drawal from electoral politics would violate its beliefs. The sole effect of the loss of the tax exemption will be to decrease the amount of money available to the Church for its religious practices. The Supreme Court has declared, however, that such a burden "is not constitutionally significant." Id. at 391; see also Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 700 (1989) (the "contention that an incrementally larger tax burden interferes with [ ] religious activities ... knows no limita- tion").
edit: Which is to say, the U.S. legal system does not recognize the 1st ammendment as granting tax exempt status to religious organizations.
[ October 01, 2008, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are not rigid lines between community issues, religious issues, moral issues, and political issues.
If you forbid churches from commenting on any moral issue that hits the political arena and hold taxation over their heads as the stick to ensure they fall in line, you are restricting religious freedom.
Nobody puts the Pope in a corner. So to speak.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There are not rigid lines between community issues, religious issues, moral issues, and political issues.
I'm pretty sure section 501(c) of the U.S. tax code lays this out pretty clearly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why should churches have different rules from everyone else?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you forbid churches from commenting on any moral issue that hits the political arena and hold taxation over their heads as the stick to ensure they fall in line, you are restricting religious freedom.
No one is doing that.
You can talk about issues and teach the morality your church desires.
But when your church gets involved in political activities (like throwing support behind one candidate over another), you've stepped into the political realm.
Thin line? Maybe? But it's there.
And I'm sorry, but I don't buy 'being taxed' as a restriction of religious freedom. The rest of us are taxed, and while it's not pleasant, we get by.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is true that the lines between religious, moral, and political issues are pretty blurry. It is hard to have one without the others. It would make more sense to stop taxing political organizations. It would be simpler. Political organizations deal with political, moral, and even religious issues.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If you forbid churches from commenting on any moral issue that hits the political arena and hold taxation over their heads as the stick to ensure they fall in line, you are restricting religious freedom
If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want another.
I think we might be better talking about things actually related to anything that has been said here, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Actually, Javert, it occurs to me that we might be in agreement.
I think there is a difference between taking a stand on a moral issue that has become a political issue and endorsing a candidate or party.
The first should absolutely be okay - to require churches to be silent is definitely attempting to muzzle them.
For the second, though, it is support for an organization or a person and not a moral issue, so I tend to view that as much less okay when done by a church.
If Joseph Smith were alive today and once again running for President, I would expect him to have his his campaign finances completely separated from the finances of the church. And to respect the "Don't use this list for any commercial or political activities" disclaimer on all the membership directories.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets see if I can clear up a couple of the issues:
Argument: The Government's removal of Tax Exempt status is an attack on my religious freedom because, my religious practices include political activism. If you threaten my political activism then you threaten my religion.
Answer: No. Many people have as part of their religious practices the eating of specific foods. Yet it is not the role of the government to make, deliver, or pay for those foods. Your right to practice your faith as you see it shall not be hindered by the government, but no where does it say it should be aided.
Argument: Any Church has the right to Tax Exempt Status. Threatening to take it away is an attack on the church.
Answer: The Tax Exempt status given to churches is an aid for all of the good works that those churches do. Succoring the poor, the sick, the homeless, orphans and widows has long been the work done beyond the spreading of the Gospel and preaching of the Word. Without these aids our society would be much poorer. Yet if that Tax Exempt status is abused, and the rules of its uses are ignored, then the benefit should be taken away.
Backing a specific candidate is not the same as community organization for a new playground. While issues that candidates are for or against can be discussed, the political support for one candidate is not fair.
Why?
Because if you speak for God, and say that God supports Mr. X, then what about his opponent? If God is for X, then Mrs. Y must be anti-God. From such arguments are communities torn apart, not stitched together.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I did just post an actual court decision that goes into why tax exemption is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Just saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Javert, do you agree with what I wrote?
I think lumping all political activities together is a mistake, because of the aforementioned blurring of the lines.
It is worth it to etch out exactly where that line should be, and it should not be "nothing that touches anything that smells like politics."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Javert, do you agree with what I wrote?
I think lumping all political activities together is a mistake, because of the aforementioned blurring of the lines.
It is worth it to etch out exactly where that line should be, and it should not be "nothing that touches anything that smells like politics."
I essentially agree, though I disagree with the following that I'll bold:
quote: The first should absolutely be okay - to require churches to be silent is definitely attempting to muzzle them.
I don't think taxing a church is the same as requiring them to be silent. Any more than when it is done to any other organization. It's merely removing the benefit that has been given them.
If the government started taxing churches more than other equivalent non-religious groups, then I think you'd be able to say that.
Back to your main point, I think the line has been drawn. And the churches in the main article that I posted all crossed it, and now should be made to pay taxes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, because really, of all of the laws we only laxly enforce this is the one that we should crusade about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*amused* We could tie it to drug laws. For every church that loses its tax exemption status for endorsing a candidate, five recreational pot smokers go to jail.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think it's much of a crusade. They violated the tax exemption part of the tax code, so they don't get exempt their taxes. It's not some big thing, except when they fight to try to get to break the law and then it's really them doing the crusading.
Do you think that they should just be allowed to break the law?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: Yes, because really, of all of the laws we only laxly enforce this is the one that we should crusade about.
Why can't I crusade about all the laws that are laxly enforced?
Not that I view posting a topic on a message board and then arguing my side as 'crusading'.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If a single political statement can turn an charitable organization into a political one, then a single charitable act can turn a political organization into a charitable one.
If a single drop of radioactively labeled p32 can turn a non-radiocative solution into a radioactive solution, then a single drop of water can turn a radioactive solution into a non-radioactive one. Hmm, I don't think that works.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exactly. Your analogy only holds true if you consider politics to be radioactive and charity to be neutral.
I think it's more like oil and water. Politics being the oil.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you forbid churches from commenting on any moral issue that hits the political arena and hold taxation over their heads as the stick to ensure they fall in line, you are restricting religious freedom.
All the more reason to tax them, so they don't need to worry about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. It'd be better to shut down presses too, so they don't worry about printing slander.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And the best way avoid respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is to treat it like every other organization out there.
You know, if people wanted to simply ignore whether something is a religious organization in determining its eligibility for government benefits, I might get behind that. To date, I haven't met anyone who wants to remove church tax exemptions who actually advocates that.
For example, there's a lot of overlap amongst those who oppose church tax exemptions and those who oppose including faith-based programs in government-sponsorship of private social programs on the same basis as non-faith based programs. Similarly, there's great support for denying certain publicly funded benefits to religious clubs that are provided to other social (non-curriculum related) clubs.
For those who actually advocate removing the tax exempt status for churches regardless of political activity, do you advocate removing the tax exempt status for secular organizations of similar type? I'm thinking of KoM's weekly lecture club, as an example. Assume such an organization 1) holds weekly meetings about topics within a broad but identifiable field, all given from the perspective of a generally-agreed-on set of views held by most members; 2) had associated charity and social organizations who derive their philosophical tenets from the group views mentioned in 1; 3) conducted regular classes within that field.
That organization would be easily tax exempt now. Do those who support removing the church exemption support removing this exemption?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Similarly, there's great support for denying certain publicly funded benefits to religious clubs that are provided to other social (non-curriculum related) clubs.
I could be wrong, but I imagine people who support that think that those religious clubs would be, or have shown evidence that they would be unable to avoid becoming political and overstepping this line we've been talking about.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sure. It'd be better to shut down presses too, so they don't worry about printing slander.
Except, again, taxing someone is not the same as stopping them from doing things.
Unless you think taxing means 'taking all of their funds and leaving them nothing to operate with.'
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I could be wrong, but I imagine people who support that think that those religious clubs would be, or have shown evidence that they would be unable to avoid becoming political and overstepping this line we've been talking about.
I've never seen political activities mentioned by either side in the debate over such clubs. And this is an issue I've been involved in a lot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What about the non-religious clubs? Why are they given the benefit of the doubt?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What about the non-religious clubs? Why are they given the benefit of the doubt?
I'm not.
I'm saying that people who say "All religious institutions or organizations should be taxed" may do so because they don't trust those organizations to stay out of politics.
I don't hold that position, and I don't personally know a person who does, or else I'd ask them. But this is what I imagine.
I don't think all religious organizations should be taxed by default. They should be held to the same standards that all tax-exempt organizations are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think all religious organizations should be taxed by default. They should be held to the same standards that all tax-exempt organizations are.
Assuming you mean similar types of tax exempt organizations, I agree. However, I think the current line of defining political activities is too far to one side. If we allow a tax exempt organization to say, for example, that alternative energy tax credits are good for America, they ought to be able to also say, "Obama supports them, McCain does not."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It'd be better to shut down presses too, so they don't worry about printing slander.
Slander is a crime. Political advocacy isn't. We already tax the press.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Slander is a crime.
No, it's not.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I am more concerned with accountability.
Take one of the many conservative churches that were super uber pro -Bush both elections, do they admit that they made the wrong choice?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Or will they say "If we'd elected Al Gore, we'd have a 10 trillion dollar Gay Marriage Crisis that would have caused total nuclear anihilation!"
It's awesome that so many American Churches were so PRO Trickle Down economics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, great, now he's infecting threads other than his own.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Slander is a crime.
No, it's not.
If we're being technical, you can't really commit slander with a printing press.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a huge difference between the technicality of "slander" v. "libel" v. "defamation" and "crime" v. "tort."
If I were just being hypertechnical, I would have pointed out that essentially no one uses printing presses anymore.
The distinction between "slander" and "libel" is not important here. The distinction between crime and not-crime is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: If we allow a tax exempt organization to say, for example, that alternative energy tax credits are good for America, they ought to be able to also say, "Obama supports them, McCain does not."
I disagree with this. While advocacy for a specific issue can have moral overtones, advocacy for a specific candidate doesn't because every candidate is a mixed bag. Short of one of the options LITERALLY being the anti-Christ, it isn't a moral crusade to bring down a specific person.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No, it's not.
I'd say "you know what I meant," Dag, but I figure it's even odds that you don't. So I'll concede the point. *grin*
For my part, I think any organization which uses religious identification as a test for its leadership should be taxable, regardless of its public function, since religious identification is (as has been already asserted on this thread) too difficult to extricate from politics. The alternative, which I'd also accept (but which may be more problematic), is to remove the restriction on political speech for all non-profits.
If the church wanted to sponsor a non-religious charitable arm, they'd be welcome to do so provided that they did not require its leadership to be members of the church.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree with this. While advocacy for a specific issue can have moral overtones, advocacy for a specific candidate doesn't because every candidate is a mixed bag. Short of one of the options LITERALLY being the anti-Christ, it isn't a moral crusade to bring down a specific person
I don't see how pointing out a candidate's views on a subject of importance to a tax exempt group needs to be a "moral crusade" to justify tax exemption. In fact, what I posted contains an implicit recognition of the mixed-bag nature of every candidate, because it focuses only on the issue of relevance to the organization.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd say "you know what I meant," Dag, but I figure it's even odds that you don't. So I'll concede the point. *grin*
What did you mean?
quote:For my part, I think any organization which uses religious identification as a test for its leadership should be taxable, regardless of its public function, since religious identification is (as has been already asserted on this thread) too difficult to extricate from politics. The alternative, which I'd also accept (but which may be more problematic), is to remove the restriction on political speech for all non-profits.
So you are decidedly not in the "treat religious organizations like any other organization" camp. Which is fine - it just makes me glad you have no chance in the foreseeable future of getting your views on this enacted into law.
Edit: that's assuming your proposed rule would be constitutional. While still unsettled, there's significant precedent suggesting it would not be constitutional.
[ October 01, 2008, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think we should go the other way. Give tax exemption to political groups.
I don't think that a too rigid intermingling of faith and politics is particularly healthy for faith or politics, but I don't see where that is the business of the IRS.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't decided on whether I support giving a tax exemption to political groups.
I have witnessed rules concerning political and religious speech and government benefits be used in a highly biased manner to suppress particular speech. I'm inherently suspicious of any rule that requires the government to inspect the content of speech, although of course I recognize the necessity to do so in many situations. So I have some inherent sympathy to the idea of giving tax exemptions to political speech.
Perhaps giving the tax exemption to political groups would be a good idea.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that a too rigid intermingling of faith and politics is particularly healthy for faith or politics, but I don't see where that is the business of the IRS.
But hang on, why is faith not the business of the IRS in the first place? Why should churches be given a tax exemption?
To answer Dag's question from above, yes, I would tax that lecture club.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But hang on, why is faith not the business of the IRS in the first place? Why should churches be given a tax exemption?
Why should they be taxed?
Edit: unless you're advocating taxing all non-profits. If so, I'm not sure why faith would come up at all in your reasoning.
[ October 01, 2008, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, because they are not for profit. Lots of groups that are not for profit get tax exemptions. Theatres, library boards, schools, parks districts...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I don't think all religious organizations should be taxed by default. They should be held to the same standards that all tax-exempt organizations are.
Assuming you mean similar types of tax exempt organizations, I agree. However, I think the current line of defining political activities is too far to one side. If we allow a tax exempt organization to say, for example, that alternative energy tax credits are good for America, they ought to be able to also say, "Obama supports them, McCain does not."
My understanding is that they can. Voter guides listing candidates stances on issues of concern to the organization are allowed. What they can't do is take the next step and say "therefore you should vote for <insert candidate here.">
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My understanding is that they can. Voter guides listing candidates stances on issues of concern to the organization are allowed. What they can't do is take the next step and say "therefore you should vote for <insert candidate here.">
You're certainly more up on the specifics of this than I am.
I was basing my impression (1) on some reports I've read urging revocation of tax exempt status for a situation like the one I cited, and (2) the fact that the type of statement I used as an example is considered forbidden in certain TV ads aired close to elections under certain campaign finance laws.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But hang on, why is faith not the business of the IRS in the first place? Why should churches be given a tax exemption?
Why should they be taxed?
quote:KoM, because they are not for profit. Lots of groups that are not for profit get tax exemptions. Theatres, library boards, schools, parks districts...
I contend that churches do exist for profit: To wit, the profit of the ministers/priests/whatever who run them.
As an aside, are televangelists counted as churches? If they are, would you defend their tax-exempt status?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I contend that churches do exist for profit: To wit, the profit of the ministers/priests/whatever who run them.
Not as "for profit" is defined in the tax law. Moreover, not in any way that distinguishes them from thousands of other organizations that qualify as "non-profit."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Not as "for profit" is defined in the tax law.
Obviously, this is not the criterion I am applying.
quote:Moreover, not in any way that distinguishes them from thousands of other organizations that qualify as "non-profit."
Many organisations pay their managers, yes. My contention, however, is that churches exist for the purpose of paying their managers, and that this is the distinction.
Again, are televangelists non-profit? Should they be? (For purposes of the law, that is.)
A question about the organisation of the law. Are churches tax-exempt under the same statute or regulation that applies to other non-profits? If not, why not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, not for profit organizations can pay their employees. That income is taxed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I figure that this may as well be as good a place to ask this question as any.
I've always been a little confused about the relationship between tax-exempt status and tax deductible donations. There may also be differences between the US system and the Canadian making it messy....who knows.
But, AFAIK, the system is that certain entities such as charities, churches, military personnel, and so forth are tax exempt. That is, the income that they raise is exempt from income tax, corporate tax, or whatever equivalents.
You can also make donations to charities and claim these as a deduction (or credit?) on your taxes, reducing the taxes that you end up paying. It seems clear that not all donations to tax exempt entities are deductible, you cannot randomly pick a guy in the military, give him money, and then claim a deduction. Rather, at least in Canada they give you a receipt saying that they are a registered charity which you have to include with your tax return.
This leads to my questions: 1) You cannot donate to any random tax-exempt entity and expect to claim a tax deduction. However, can you assume that all valid tax deductible donations go to tax-exempt entities? 2) Not all non-profits are charities. However, are all charities non-profits? 3) What are churches? Are they non-profits? Are they charities? Are alms tax-deductible donations? How about tithes?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, and here's one additional question. What we seem to be talking about in this thread is tax-exempt status and whether these churches would lose that.
Theoretically, if they lost tax-exempt status would they also lose their ability to issue a receipt for a charitable donation or are those two unrelated?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Obviously, this is not the criterion I am applying.
Obviously, I did not say that you were. I was making a point that relied on the next statement as well.
quote:Many organisations pay their managers, yes. My contention, however, is that churches exist for the purpose of paying their managers, and that this is the distinction.
Your contention is wrong by any objective standard you could fully articulate for determining whether an organization exists "for the purpose of paying [its] managers."
quote:Again, are televangelists non-profit? Should they be? (For purposes of the law, that is.)
*shrug* Depends entirely on what you mean by "televangelist." It's fact-specific, and I doubt either of us know enough facts about any specific one to meaningfully address the issue.
If you want me to say that there is some point where personal benefit to one in control of a tax exempt status becomes so great that a tax exemption is no long warranted, I've never said otherwise. Of course such a point exists.
quote:A question about the organisation of the law. Are churches tax-exempt under the same statute or regulation that applies to other non-profits? If not, why not?
quote:Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mucus, you can compare the requirements for an organization being able to receive tax-deductible contributions by looking at Section 170(c):
quote:c) Charitable contribution defined For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” means a contribution or gift to or for the use of— (1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United States or the District of Columbia, but only if the contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes. (2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation— (A) created or organized in the United States or in any possession thereof, or under the law of the United States, any State, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States; (B) organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals; (C) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual; and (D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501 (c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. A contribution or gift by a corporation to a trust, chest, fund, or foundation shall be deductible by reason of this paragraph only if it is to be used within the United States or any of its possessions exclusively for purposes specified in subparagraph (B). Rules similar to the rules of section 501 (j) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. (3) A post or organization of war veterans, or an auxiliary unit or society of, or trust or foundation for, any such post or organization— (A) organized in the United States or any of its possessions, and (B) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. (4) In the case of a contribution or gift by an individual, a domestic fraternal society, order, or association, operating under the lodge system, but only if such contribution or gift is to be used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. (5) A cemetery company owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of its members, or any corporation chartered solely for burial purposes as a cemetery corporation and not permitted by its charter to engage in any business not necessarily incident to that purpose, if such company or corporation is not operated for profit and no part of the net earnings of such company or corporation inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” also means an amount treated under subsection (g) as paid for the use of an organization described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
There's a bit in there that's pretty much taken from 501(c)(3).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Yes - Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. I've linked this before for you (probably a different page):
Ah! Just the information I need. I want 'religious' struck from that list. Keep 'charitable', but 'religious' benefits theists over atheists (and organised theists over unorganised ones), which is presumably unconstitutional and certainly unethical.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm glad you can't vote.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
My hazy reading of that is that the list of tax-exempt entities includes charities via 501c3
So, all charities are apparently tax exempt. All charities are also non-profit. Also via "(D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501 (c)(3)" it seems that a church would automatically lose the ability to receive tax deductible donations if they lost tax exempt status for the reasons laid out in the OP.
Interesting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm glad you can't vote.
I'm very sorry that you can, but neither sentiment seems to be much of a reasoned argument. Would you like to tell me how the religious exemption does not favour theists over atheists, and the organised over the unorganised?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ah! Just the information I need. I want 'religious' struck from that list. Keep 'charitable', but 'religious' benefits theists over atheists (and organised theists over unorganised ones), which is presumably unconstitutional and certainly unethical.
You must have a strange definition of the word "presumably" if you think giving a tax exemption to churches is "presumably unconstitutional."
As to your contention that it benefits theists over atheists, given the entirety of the list in 501(c)(3), atheists are not benefited any less than theists. There are numerous organizations that atheists could create that would qualify as "religious" under the rule, just as there are many more organizations that anyone could make that would not even implicate the religious portion of that section.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would you like to tell me how the religious exemption does not favour theists over atheists, and the organised over the unorganised?
Why don't you tell me how it does favor the theist over the atheist? Just give an example of an organization that an atheist would want to found that is not exempt while a corresponding theist organization would be exempt.
As to the organized over the unorganized, I'm not sure how that supports your desire to remove only one type of organization from that list. Only the organized, by definition, can benefit from ANYTHING on that list.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The idea that it is unconstitutional to favor the organized over the unorganized is absolutely hilarious.
For the theists over atheists, atheists are able to for non-profit community groups and qualify as tax-exempt.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Actually, Javert, it occurs to me that we might be in agreement.
I think there is a difference between taking a stand on a moral issue that has become a political issue and endorsing a candidate or party.
The first should absolutely be okay - to require churches to be silent is definitely attempting to muzzle them.
For the second, though, it is support for an organization or a person and not a moral issue, so I tend to view that as much less okay when done by a church.
If Joseph Smith were alive today and once again running for President, I would expect him to have his his campaign finances completely separated from the finances of the church. And to respect the "Don't use this list for any commercial or political activities" disclaimer on all the membership directories.
That is pretty much what I believe as well, and the problem with this is that these churches have done exactly that...endorsed a specific party/candidate.
It is partly because of these issues that a lot of people have a problem electing a Roman Catholic President.It has happened, but not recently. A lot of people wonder what the President would do if his duty to the country required him to do one thing while his religious affiliation (or the Pope specifically) required him to do another.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... If you want me to say that there is some point where personal benefit to one in control of a tax exempt status becomes so great that a tax exemption is no long warranted, I've never said otherwise. Of course such a point exists.
I'm trying to work my way through the texts that you brought up. Is this point at which tax exempt status is no longer warranted, defined explicitly here?
A related question, from reading 170, it doesn't seem to (my very untrained eyes) specify how much money a charity has to spend on actual charity work before it gets disqualified. Could a charity spend like 99% of its money to simply raise more money or on a CEOs salary and still be considered a charity?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Would you like to tell me how the religious exemption does not favour theists over atheists, and the organised over the unorganised?
Why don't you tell me how it does favor the theist over the atheist? Just give an example of an organization that an atheist would want to found that is not exempt while a corresponding theist organization would be exempt.
Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured. This seems rather similar to the gay-marriage argument that gays have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry members of the opposite gender. I know you don't believe this argument, so why are you applying the analoguous version here?
Edit: To be clearer, the analogy runs:
Gays have the same rights as others, they can marry people of the opposite sex. Atheists have the same rights as others, they can found religious groups.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The idea that it is unconstitutional to favor the organized over the unorganized is absolutely hilarious.
Oh? "Make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This law gives benefits to organised religious groups which are not given to ones which do not organise themselves. Would you like to make a serious argument for how this is not favouring one set of religions over another, or would you like to continue shouting about how hilarious my posts are?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm trying to work my way through the texts that you brought up. Is this point at which tax exempt status is no longer warranted, defined explicitly here?
It is not defined explicitly, but that limitation is contained in "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." Regulations define more specifically when paying a salary crosses over into inuring to the benefit of an individual.
quote:Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured.
Atheists could found many groups that are analogous to churches if they wanted to. The law specifically allows it. If PZ Meyers wants to meet with a couple hundred people every week to talk about the importance of rationalism, the law allows him a tax exemption to do so.
It seems your contention is that "the law allows tax exemption for some activities that not everyone is interested in participating in." If so, then yet again you're relying on a factor to exclude religious organizations that should, if applied consistently, exclude any organization that some people are not interested in. Which basically means all organizations.
quote:This seems rather similar to the gay-marriage argument that gays have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry members of the opposite gender. I know you don't believe this argument, so why are you applying the analoguous version here?
You're smart enough to reach the conclusion that I don't consider the arguments to be the same. I think you're smart enough to figure out why.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You're smart enough to reach the conclusion that I don't consider the arguments to be the same. I think you're smart enough to figure out why.
There are many possible mistakes you could be making to lead you to this erroneous conclusion. While I'm certainly capable of reading your mind to see which it is, I prefer not to do so. Please elucidate your wrong reasoning so I can set you straight.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh? "Make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This law gives benefits to organised religious groups which are not given to ones which do not organise themselves. Would you like to make a serious argument for how this is not favouring one set of religions over another, or would you like to continue shouting about how hilarious my posts are?
If you have a credible case to make that the Constitution prohibits this, make it. You haven't done anything here except state a conclusion that, on its face, is contrary to the interpretations of the constitution that have the force of law in this country.
It seems strange to insist that someone else make a serious argument when you have declined to do so yourself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You're smart enough to reach the conclusion that I don't consider the arguments to be the same. I think you're smart enough to figure out why.
There are many possible mistakes you could be making to lead you to this erroneous conclusion. While I'm certainly capable of reading your mind to see which it is, I prefer not to do so. Please elucidate your wrong reasoning so I can set you straight.
Quite simply, your analogy sucks.
Again, you demand clarification when people oppose points that you've simply stated without support. In this case, you've ignored a specific example that identifies the essential point.
Either start actually making an argument or stop demanding that others do so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It seems your contention is that "the law allows tax exemption for some activities that not everyone is interested in participating in."
No; my contention is rather that theism and atheism are foundationally asymmetric on this issue. It is reasonable to assemble an organisation around a theme of "We believe X about the structure of the universe, and derive Y morality therefrom", and study X and Y. It is not reasonable to make a similar organisation for "We do not believe X, and consequently have differing moralities Y, Z, and omega".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Quite simply, your analogy sucks.
Ok, I see you are not interested in a reasoned debate. Fair enough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The only benefit to the religious I'm aware of churches getting is the presumption that they are exempt, instead of being required to file certain paperwork. Though many churches do file such paperwork.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No; my contention is rather that theism and atheism are foundationally asymmetric on this issue. It is reasonable to assemble an organisation around a theme of "We believe X about the structure of the universe, and derive Y morality therefrom", and study X and Y. It is not reasonable to make a similar organisation for "We do not believe X, and consequently have differing moralities Y, Z, and omega".
But it is reasonable to make a similar organization "We believe in A (a part of which includes a lack of belief in X), and derive B morality therefrom, and study C and D." For example, the objectivists could easily have such an organization. So could pure utilitarianists.
In other words, atheism is not the sole joining characteristic of the hypothetical PZM organization any more than theism is the sole joining characteristic of the Catholic Church.
quote:Ok, I see you are not interested in a reasoned debate. Fair enough.
Once again ignoring what I've said in numerous posts on the subject.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For those that are curious, it seems that Canada has an analogous policy, albeit for charities rather than for tax-exempt status specifically:
quote:6.1 What are prohibited activities?
A charity may not take part in an illegal activity or a partisan political activity. A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.
When a political party or candidate for public office supports a policy that is also supported by a charity, the charity is not prevented from promoting this policy. However, a charity in this situation must not directly or indirectly support the political party or candidate for public office. This means that a charity may make the public aware of its position on an issue provided:
1. it does not explicitly connect its views to any political party or candidate for public office; 2. the issue is connected to its purposes; 3. its views are based on a well-reasoned position; 4. public awareness campaigns do not become the charity's primary activity.
quote:If you have a credible case to make that the Constitution prohibits this, make it. You haven't done anything here except state a conclusion that, on its face, is contrary to the interpretations of the constitution that have the force of law in this country.
The Constitution prohibits laws that favour one religion over others, or that inhibit the free exercise of religion or lack thereof. My contention is that the tax benefit favours those religions which choose to organise themselves into churches with paid ministers - or even just church-owned buildings - over, for example, Wicca. That is, the practice of Protestantism is made easier by this law, while the practice of Wicca or atheism is not. I do not see how this is so different from a law stating, for example, "The evangelical-Lutheran faith remains the religion of the State, and those who profess it are obliged to raise their children in the same". It's state approval for one set, and not for another, all the same.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But it is reasonable to make a similar organization "We believe in A (a part of which includes a lack of belief in X), and derive B morality therefrom, and study C and D." For example, the objectivists could easily have such an organization. So could pure utilitarianists.
You are ignoring that no morality is deriveable from atheism. "There is no God, therefore... what?" You cannot reason from 'is' to 'ought'. And to the extent that C and D are observable phenomena, I don't see how you can call such an exercise religious - it would then be covered by the 'scientific' part of the law. Conversely, if they are not observable phenomena, I don't think you're talking about atheists anymore.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Once again ignoring what I've said in numerous posts on the subject.
No, I merely deny that it constitutes reasoned debate.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured.
You can apply that claim to any case of belief versus non-belief.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting laws that favor one religion over the other by side effect. For instance, public decency laws almost certainly make the practice of certain religions somewhat more problematic than others. However, they are still Constitutional.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured.
You can apply that claim to any case of belief versus non-belief.
Yes? I don't understand your point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting laws that favor one religion over the other by side effect. For instance, public decency laws almost certainly make the practice of certain religions somewhat more problematic than others. However, they are still Constitutional.
Tax exemptions are hardly a side effect! They are the actual, direct purpose of the law in question!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, atheists are free to found an organization which is basically the same as a church in terms of observable activities: regular meetings, with a regular employee who supervises them, centering around community building, and receive the exact same benefits.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Again, as noted, an atheist would have no reason to do so.
However, I should not be doing this, I should be writing the truth-matching code, so I'm going to take a break now. If you see me post in here for the next few hours, remind me that I'm supposed to be working. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But the direct purpose of the law is not to give tax exemptions to churches, but to give it to non-profit organizations. Many churches just happen to fit the definition. That religions which have easier times fitting the definition receive some benefit other religions do not is a side effect of the law, not the main effect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You are ignoring that no morality is deriveable from atheism. "There is no God, therefore... what?" You cannot reason from 'is' to 'ought'.
And you ignore - which I find almost unbelievable given the fact I took great pains to say it explicitly - the fact that it's not atheism from which morality would flow in my example.
quote:And to the extent that C and D are observable phenomena, I don't see how you can call such an exercise religious - it would then be covered by the 'scientific' part of the law. Conversely, if they are not observable phenomena, I don't think you're talking about atheists anymore.
I didn't say it was religious. I said it would be tax exempt. It might be tax exempt under the "religious" part of the section (since I don't think the IRS is using your definition of religious) or another part of it, but it would definitely be exempt.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why would an atheist have no reason to found a club? There are lots of clubs with no particular religious orientation, including ones that provide pay for their leaders.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again, as noted, an atheist would have no reason to do so.
Many of your fellow atheists would seem to disagree. See, for example, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Atheists of Florida, the Boulder Atheists, or the Atheist-Agnostic Students of Portland State University.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
As a thought exercise, if Constitution allowed for the establishment of Christianity as a state religion but somehow inexplicably this law remained unchanged, I wonder if this clause would outlaw tax exempt status for churches on the basis that their earnings would insure to the benefit of an individual, namely the Christian god.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You are ignoring that no morality is deriveable from atheism. "There is no God, therefore... what?" You cannot reason from 'is' to 'ought'.
And you ignore - which I find almost unbelievable given the fact I took great pains to say it explicitly - the fact that it's not atheism from which morality would flow in my example.
Then I can only suggest that you needed to suffer a bit more. While I see now what you were trying to say, it was anything but obvious.
You are suggesting that atheists could organise around some sort of ethical or philosophical system, and it would be tax-exempt under the religious clause. I suggest that your theory does not explain why the IRS's denial of tax exemption to Scientologists was upheld by the courts. (The IRS eventually reversed itself, but the courts haven't.)
quote:
quote:And to the extent that C and D are observable phenomena, I don't see how you can call such an exercise religious - it would then be covered by the 'scientific' part of the law. Conversely, if they are not observable phenomena, I don't think you're talking about atheists anymore.
I didn't say it was religious. I said it would be tax exempt. It might be tax exempt under the "religious" part of the section (since I don't think the IRS is using your definition of religious) or another part of it, but it would definitely be exempt.
If it is covered under a different part of the law, then the 'religious' part does not extend equal benefits to atheists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: But the direct purpose of the law is not to give tax exemptions to churches, but to give it to non-profit organizations.
This does not seem to match the language of the regulation, which explicitly mentions religious purposes. If that's not tax exemptions for churches I don't know what is.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Many of your fellow atheists would seem to disagree. See, for example, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Atheists of Florida, the Boulder Atheists, or the Atheist-Agnostic Students of Portland State University.
Seems like we had this thread already.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM: The Scientology example was based on what types of things were happening at the church, and if those things actually fit the legal definition of a tax exempt organization.
There is one single fact that blows your arguments out of the water....churches are only one form of tax-exempt organization. There are additional avenues to acheive that other than declaring yourself a religious organization, and the benefits of doing so match the exact benefits of being a church in regards to this law.
To use your own poorly reasoned example, there is already a "civil union" allowed to non-religious groups...with all of the exact rights and obligations of the original "marriage" allowed to churches. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You are suggesting that atheists could organise around some sort of ethical or philosophical system, and it would be tax-exempt under the religious clause. I suggest that your theory does not explain why the IRS's denial of tax exemption to Scientologists was upheld by the courts. (The IRS eventually reversed itself, but the courts haven't.)
The reasons for upholding the non-exempt status had to do with other areas of the law: specifically that it was commercial and operated for the benefit of Hubbard.
quote:If it is covered under a different part of the law, then the 'religious' part does not extend equal benefits to atheists.
1) They are covered under the religious clause (Glenn's first example is explicitly tax exempt under this clause - thanks Glenn!). So your factual foundation is now simply gone.
2) Even if it weren't, constitutional analysis of disparate effect would examine the whole law.
3) Finally, even if it were true that atheists can't make use of the religious exemption (which they can - see 1) or that the law favored the religious over the non-religious (which it doesn't - see 2), you would only be at the beginning of the constitutional analysis not the end. The next step would be to examine the state interest advanced by the law and how closely the part (the whole part) giving rise to disparate effect was tailored to match that interest. You haven't even touched on this area.
[ October 02, 2008, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The idea that it is unconstitutional to favor the organized over the unorganized is absolutely hilarious.
Oh? "Make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This law gives benefits to organised religious groups which are not given to ones which do not organise themselves. Would you like to make a serious argument for how this is not favouring one set of religions over another, or would you like to continue shouting about how hilarious my posts are?
Make a serious argument to you? With the argument you have brought to the forum and your known biases and blindness? Not even remotely interested. I also do not engage in debate with the homeless guy panhandling by my building every day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, I suggest that if you don't want to engage KoM, you might also refrain from insulting him. It looks petty otherwise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm good, but your concern is appreciated.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Besides, Glen, Dags and I pretty much have countered it step by step, covering the common sense angle (me)m the legal angle (Dags) and the "Whoops! I forgot to fact check" angle (Glen).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok. The 'atheist churches' convince me. I sit corrected.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Any group can apply for tax-exempt status, as long as they meet the requirements. Excluding churches simply because you don't agree with their beliefs would not be very fair or equatable. That is what it really boils down to, IMO.
If one fo those atheist groups were to speak endorsing a specific candidate, the would possible lose their status as well. Holding religious groups to the same standard is fair and equitable.
There was an interesting tangent mentioned above that I would like to explore. Some people seemed to think that the removal of a privileged was the same as applying a penalty/punishment. I remember discussing this as a psych student many years ago. There is a difference between imposing a fine for breaking a law, and removing tax-exempt status for groups that speak out politically. The net result is one of loss, but they come from two very different place.
A fine would be imposing your will on a group, while removing tax-exempt status from a group is less a punishment...it is an predetermined result of their actions. A group agrees to do A, B and C, and because they do all three they qualify for a specific status. However, after talking about it, the group decides that B is against their beliefs, then they lose that status. It is less a punishment than a natural result of their actions and beliefs.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Nothing that you've said makes it not be a penalty. Both are a punitive action against you because of your actions. In English, we call that a penalty.
Do you really think that if we did revoke these churches tax-exempt status, that they would be unable to regain it after some appropriate time had passed?
Loss of status is the penalty for breaking the rules you have agreed to for that status, just like paying a fine is the penalty for breaking the speed limit as you have agreed to when you get a driver's license.
If you're argument is correct, then loss of your driver's license, say from a DUI, isn't a penalty either--its just a predetermined result of your actions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I also do not engage in debate with the homeless guy panhandling by my building every day."
I am no longer able to restrain myself.
I consider missionaries who proselytize, etc. to be only about 1/8 of a step below panhandlers on the "I really wish I was mean enough to punch this fool in the face" meter. Just sayin'.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As soon as they ask you for money and insult you when you don't give it, I'll grant your comparison.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, they won't let you in the building if you don't pay your 10%, as I understand it. So it's a delayed request.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You do not understand correctly.
If you're talking about the temples, then tithing is the least of the obstacles to the general public.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not saying the general public. I'm saying that, as I understood it, failing to tithe could potentially lose you your temple recommend.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On that note, is tithing normally tax deductible? Do they give you the American equivalent of a receipt of donation to a registered Canadian charity or something?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, it is.
---
If you're not talking about the general public, then the analogy REALLY falls down.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"As soon as they ask you for money and insult you when you don't give it, I'll grant your comparison."
It wasn't a comparison, per se. There is that 1/8 of a step difference.
My thought, when I deal with panhandlers, is "must you handle your pan in front of me?".
OK, sorry. I promise to grow out of that.
No, my thought is more like, "this country/town is going to shit." I really despise them.
My thought, OTOH, when dealing with missionaries, is "I really wish he could find something else to do right now. This is so not interesting to me." I actually have nothing against them. I almost like them. I myself am passionate, and like to covert people to this, that, or the other. Y'all know that. I just...am only interested in the things I am interested in, usually. I like studying religion at a remove, where I don't have to profess belief or care about it if I don't feel like caring about it. Proselytizing me puts me on the spot too much for me to be totally comfortable. It's too unexpected. I also don't like feeling like I can't escape. I'm really only speaking of missionaries approaching me on the street. I can't speak from experience re: someone knocking on my door. I usually just defer to someone else in the house who might actually find dealing with them worth their time. I've never been home alone when missionaries have called.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)