posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I did just post an actual court decision that goes into why tax exemption is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Just saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because really, of all of the laws we only laxly enforce this is the one that we should crusade about.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, because they are not for profit. Lots of groups that are not for profit get tax exemptions. Theatres, library boards, schools, parks districts...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.">
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
