Tax Policy and Religious Freedom

[ClydeR]

The constitution is supposed to guarantee everyone freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But church leaders, who are supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of those constitutional guarantees, have fewer free speech rights than others.

The Alliance Defense Fund (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org) has a plan to challenge the restrictions in a coordinated nationwide effort on Sunday, September 28. On that day, ministers across the country will defy the IRS and exercise their freedom of speech to evaluate with their congregations the positions taken by the two presidential candidates on important issues, like preserving families and protecting life. The protest should provoke IRS action that will lead to a challenge in court. By the time the cases reach the Supreme Court, there will probably be one or two additional conservative judges who will construe the law, not create it, assuming McCain wins, which seems highly likely.


In 1954, Congress made it illegal for nonprofits, including churches, to endorse or publicly oppose political candidates or to intervene in candidates' elections, although they are free to take sides on issues. Only one church has challenged this, unsuccessfully. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled in 2000 that the IRS didn't violate constitutional rights when it revoked the tax-exempt status of Branch Ministries of Binghamton, N.Y., which had bought newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton's candidacy.

Some legal scholars are hoping for a new test case. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, says a church might make a successful claim that the federal government is burdening the free exercise of religion and cannot do so without a compelling state interest.

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029464937179517.html)

[Kuyuk]

lol.

<<assuming McCain wins, which seems highly likely>>
funny.

Where does the IRS come in with freedom of speech?


K

[ClydeR]

Where does the IRS come in with freedom of speech?

Churches are tax exempt organizations. The IRS revokes the tax exempt status of churches that endorse candidates.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." --Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

[BigWorm]

If a church behaves like a political organization, it should be taxed like a political organization.

Should Atheist organizations that openly support anti-religious candidates be exempt from taxes?

[Joe]

Church leaders, in their individual rights as US citizens, should be allowed to do whatever they want in supporting candidate X. Church leaders, in their official capacity as church leaders and using church resources, should stay out of candidate endorsement. Simply my opinion, always has been.

[ClydeR]

Church leaders, in their individual rights as US citizens, should be allowed to do whatever they want in supporting candidate X. Church leaders, in their official capacity as church leaders and using church resources, should stay out of candidate endorsement. Simply my opinion, always has been.


If a church behaves like a political organization, it should be taxed like a political organization.

Those would be fine points, if all other organizations were treated the same way. Labor unions, for example, receive preferable treatment to churches in the area of political speech. Union dues paid to a labor union are tax deductible to the member, just as contributions to a church are tax deductible to the parishioner. But labor unions are free to endorse political candidates, while churches are not.

Think about that. Labor unions are free to meet in their own facilities to discuss amongst themselves which political candidate will best serve the interests of the labor union and then to endorse that candidate. But if church members meet in the church building for the same purpose, then the church will suffer a heavy tax burden--a burden so heavy that it would cripple or destroy most churches.

In addition to the free speech guarantee to everyone in the constitution, there is a specific guarantee of freedom of religion to churches. Churches should have more freedom than labor unions, with at least equally favorable tax treatment. It's in the constitution.

[Gan]

Think about that. Labor unions are free to meet in their own facilities to discuss amongst themselves which political candidate will best serve the interests of the labor union and then to endorse that candidate. But if church members meet in the church building for the same purpose, then the church will suffer a heavy tax burden--a burden so heavy that it would cripple or destroy most churches.
Church members = union members: each able to deduct contributions off of their taxes as they see fit.

Churches != Labor Unions: Churches are tax exempt as an organization. Labor Unions are not tax exempt as an organization.

Nice try, but your analagy does not fly. Nor does your attempt at justifying the church taking a stance on politics from the pulpit and using its influence as a leader within that organization to endorse political candidates during an election season (or any season in general).



In addition to the free speech guarantee to everyone in the constitution, there is a specific guarantee of freedom of religion to churches. Churches should have more freedom than labor unions, with at least equally favorable tax treatment. It's in the constitution.
Churches can have all the freedom they desire, just not at the tax exempt status that they enjoy whereas others do not.

Personally if a church wants to go out and stump for a particular candidate - they should be able to, just as soon as they revoke that exemption.

If you wanna play, you gotta pay. Its in the constitution...

[Keller]

The difference is that labor unions are protecting the interests of their workers while churches are protecting the hegemony of fairy tales.

[Latrinsorm]

Unions protecting workers is the real fairy tale.

[ClydeR]

Labor Unions are not tax exempt as an organization.

Sure they are. See paragraph (c)(5) of this law (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC501).

[BigWorm]

Sure they are. See paragraph (c)(5) of this law (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC501).

I'm pretty sure ClydeR is right about labor unions being exempt from taxes.

[Gan]

Sure they are. See paragraph (c)(5) of this law (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC501).

I stand corrected. *

*Specifically with regards to Labor Unions not being tax exempt entities.

[landy]

FYI ClydeR, military members are not allowed to openly show support for a candidate while in uniform, nor are they allowed to reference their association with the military in any public communication whilst supporting a political candidate.

If the men and women who may die in service to their country aren't allowed to openly support a political candidate, why should an institution like the church be allowed?

[Latrinsorm]

Aren't our men and women in the armed forces forbidden from doing all kinds of things civilians can do? For instance, wear lipstick?

[landy]

The women can wear lipstick, just has to be a muted color, and I think only while in dress uniform, so not in the field. Although I remember there were some girls who got away with it in fatigues or BDUs (battle dress uniform), but the few who did were never in the field so, go figure.

[Clove]

The difference is that labor unions are protecting the interests of their workers while churches are protecting the hegemony of fairy tales.


Unions protecting workers is the real fairy tale.Quoted for hilarity.


In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
-Yogi Berra

[ClydeR]

If the men and women who may die in service to their country aren't allowed to openly support a political candidate, why should an institution like the church be allowed?

I don't see why the issue of churches having free political speech is tied to the issue of members of the military having free political speech. Are the two issues related in some way?

[Ignot]

Politics > GOD

[TheEschaton]

Unions are often required by law, religion is a personal choice. Giving them tax exempt status goes far beyond "allowing religious freedom", as religious freedom wouldn't be restricted by NOT giving them tax exempt status.

Unions require tax exempt status because it is a social necessity.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

Churches should pay taxes. Most are businesses that turn a hefty profit.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Unless those are "God's" dollars being raked in, render them to the U.S. Treasury. If they are "God's" dollars, then they should be given to the Levites.

Damn money changers...

[Keller]

Churches should pay taxes. Most are businesses that turn a hefty profit.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Unless those are "God's" dollars being raked in, render them to the U.S. Treasury. If they are "God's" dollars, then they should be given to the Levites.

Damn money changers...

Wait. But I thought Mabus = ClydeR!

[ClydeR]

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

I'm glad you read the Bible. Although America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, which makes the Bible very helpful in interpreting the law, ultimately we must rely on our actual laws, starting with the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If churches had to pay taxes, then the exercise of religion wouldn't be "free." I submit that taxing Christian churches is, therefore, unconstitutional. We need judges who actually read the law.

[Mabus]

Wait. But I thought Mabus = ClydeR!
You usally save that for a few pages after you have been utterly whipped by posters here at political debate. Nice to see you waste your main defense so early.

[Warriorbird]

So, Clyde, you feel the same way about all those terrible heathen non Christian religions?

[Mabus]

I'm glad you read the Bible.
I read many religious, spiritual and philosophical works. The "bible" is certainly worthy of a few reads, as are many other works.


Although America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, which makes the Bible very helpful in interpreting the law, ultimately we must rely on our actual laws, starting with the constitution.
It is actually a merchant nation founded on merchanting principles, a good read of history can show.

The constitution was a wonderfully revolutionary document, and set us on the course that is this grand experiement.


If churches had to pay taxes, then the exercise of religion wouldn't be "free." I submit that taxing Christian churches is, therefore, unconstitutional. We need judges who actually read the law.
Let's see what Jefferson had to say about that:
"Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

Taxation could be deemed a "social duty", just as his statement has been used by the Supreme Court to put down polygamy as "subversive of good order". Not saying it should, but an argument could be made to state it.

[TheEschaton]

I'm glad you read the Bible. Although America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, which makes the Bible very helpful in interpreting the law, ultimately we must rely on our actual laws, starting with the constitution. (My emphasis).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If churches had to pay taxes, then the exercise of religion wouldn't be "free." I submit that taxing Christian churches is, therefore, unconstitutional. We need judges who actually read the law.

LOL, so we only need to pay attention to religion when it helps you out?

"Free" in this context simply means unfettered - IE, you can choose which religion you wish to belong to. It does not mean that religion should be, financially, free. We do have judges who read the law, and they realized that the Founding Fathers, many of whom were Deists, and even a few atheists, put limitations on the Free Exercise clause, including, but not restricted to, the Establishment Clause immediately preceding it.

Secondly, even if you interpret "free" to mean the church should be "free" (as opposed to the access to it), churches have full rights to endorse candidates as they see fit. They are not restricted from doing that. But they will lose their tax exempt status if they do so, as they become political entities.

-TheE-

[Clove]

They are not restricted from doing that. But they will lose their tax exempt status if they do so, as they become political entities.

-TheE-Unlike Labor Unions.

[Gan]

A good read on tax exempt status of certain types of entities.

http://www.msae.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1551

[Warriorbird]

Hell and being shafted by a corporation are just monetized a little differently.

[Keller]

You usally save that for a few pages after you have been utterly whipped by posters here at political debate. Nice to see you waste your main defense so early.

It was a joke, but I didn't expect you to have a sense of humor.

[Seran]

Religion is not evil.

Having said that, I will point out that religion has had a very strong hand in shaping politics and history in Europe. Plenty of rulers have also used their so called divine succession in which to manipulate their followers by convenient twists and obsfucations of religious doctrine. We even see it today with politicians getting plenty of facetime with various religious leaders in order to bulk up their relationships with God in the eyes of the believers.

Bearing the above in mind, politics has no basis to be combined with religion, nor should religion be dictated by politics. The last thing we need is to have ministers implying to their followers that voting for candidate X is god's will.

[Parkbandit]

Unions require tax exempt status because it is a social necessity.

-TheE-

Of course they are comrade...

:rofl:

[Gan]

Of course they are comrade...

:rofl:

Yea, I laughed heartily at that comment too, every time he brings it up in any thread/post discussing labor unions.

I wonder if he's got a union label stamped on his ass.

[Gan]

Religion is not evil.

Having said that, I will point out that religion has had a very strong hand in shaping politics and history in Europe. Plenty of rulers have also used their so called divine succession in which to manipulate their followers by convenient twists and obsfucations of religious doctrine. We even see it today with politicians getting plenty of facetime with various religious leaders in order to bulk up their relationships with God in the eyes of the believers.

Bearing the above in mind, politics has no basis to be combined with religion, nor should religion be dictated by politics. The last thing we need is to have ministers implying to their followers that voting for candidate X is god's will.

/agreed

Imagine that, a belief structure that requires no scientific proof that is actually allowed to endorse, encourage, and even influence its followers to follow a political candidate with the same logic.

Imagine where we would be today if we voted for candidates based on the faith that they would be a good leader - and not requiring any evidence or proof that they even remotely qualified to do the job.

:nono:

Amen!

[Keller]

/agreed

Imagine that, a belief structure that requires no scientific proof that is actually allowed to endorse, encourage, and even influence its followers to follow a political candidate with the same logic.

Imagine where we would be today if we voted for candidates based on the faith that they would be a good leader - and not requiring any evidence or proof that they even remotely qualified to do the job.

:nono:

Amen!


churches are protecting the hegemony of fairy tales.

Basically.

[Clove]

Like the fairy tale that the majority put any thought into their votes?

[Clove]

Unions are often required by law, religion is a personal choice. Giving them tax exempt status goes far beyond "allowing religious freedom", as religious freedom wouldn't be restricted by NOT giving them tax exempt status.

Unions require tax exempt status because it is a social necessity.

-TheE-Bullshit. Taxes are a social necessity.

[Keller]

Bullshit. Taxes are a social necessity.

Comrade, nice to see you on board with the revolution!

[Keller]

Like the fairy tale that the majority put any thought into their votes?

Party at Ilvane's.

[Clove]

Party at Ilvane's.Exactly.

[Latrinsorm]

Imagine that, a belief structure that requires no scientific proof that is actually allowed to endorse, encourage, and even influence its followers to follow a political candidate with the same logic.As a rigorously trained scientist, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of the electorate make choices with as much scientific reasoning as the average clod of mud displays - and that this has nothing to do with establishments of religion.

[Gan]

As a rigorously trained scientist, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of the electorate make choices with as much scientific reasoning as the average clod of mud displays - and that this has nothing to do with establishments of religion.

Unless you consider the common denominator...

[ClydeR]

A church in California was being investigated by the IRS, at the behest of liberal groups, just because the pastor of the church issued an endorsement for Mike Huckabee on the church's letterhead and on the church's radio program. When the IRS saw that the church was ready to fight, the IRS backed down and the church has been totally exonerated (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/drake-church-irs-2045593-endorsement-radio).

Perplexingly, the IRS decision turned on the fact that the pastor sent the endorsement to people other than members of the church. It would seem to me that communications among church members would be more likely to be protected than communications that are essentially advertisements sent to nonmembers.

"I live in America, not Russia or China," said Pastor Wiley Drake, Sr.

[g++]

You mean when the IRS learned that the letters and radioshow air time were not paid for by tax exempt money? Thats the worst summation of an article ever.

[oldanforgotten]

A church in California was being investigated by the IRS, at the behest of liberal groups, just because the pastor of the church issued an endorsement for Mike Huckabee on the church's letterhead and on the church's radio program. When the IRS saw that the church was ready to fight, the IRS backed down and the church has been totally exonerated (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/drake-church-irs-2045593-endorsement-radio).

Perplexingly, the IRS decision turned on the fact that the pastor sent the endorsement to people other than members of the church. It would seem to me that communications among church members would be more likely to be protected than communications that are essentially advertisements sent to nonmembers.

"I live in America, not Russia or China," said Pastor Wiley Drake, Sr.

And yet this entire time you've missed the very point of the law. That an organization cannot legally be considered a non taxable entity if they endorse a candidate/become part of the political process. That's the law concerning ALL tax exempt organizations, not just religious institutions.

Right now, many Christians pay a 10% tithe to their church, so their pastor can live comfortably while telling them all about God and the Bible. I'll give you retards a discount. Pay me 2%, and I'll make up some shit too, and tell you whatever you want to hear, and I'll do it all, you know, like advocate bombing abortion clinics, murdering people in Africa that don't convert to Christianity ala 1800's style, and I'll even say the witchhunts of the 1700's was a noble idea that we need to bring back. Good times.

But unlike your priests and reverends, I won't molest little boys. I'll leave that to you guys.