When Religous orders become political should they lose tax exempt status?

[Foxfyre]

IRS regulations allow clergy to preach about moral or political issues, as long as they don’t favor one candidate over another.

Internal Revenue Service regulations forbid all tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organizations — including churches — from promoting or endorsing candidates.

Absolutely. In fact many 501(c)(3) organizations are chartered specifically for the purpose of studying, promoting and advocating a particular social issue or concept. Planned Parenthood certainly is an advocate for abortion as PETA is advocate for ethical treatment of animals and Greenpeace an advocate for protection of the environment, etc. etc. etc. It would be positively ridiculous for any of these organizations to be muzzled and not be able to publish or promote their research and conclusions.

None are allowed to say vote for Candidate A or don't vote for Candidate B or support this party or whatever, but they certainly have as much right as any other Americans to express their opinion about any issue as being good or bad or neutral.

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont think government should have the power to tax religion or have any say in what they can or cant say across the pulpit.

 

[Foxfyre]

I dont think government should have the power to tax religion or have any say in what they can or cant say across the pulpit.

I don't think tax exempt status should be given to any organization that promotes a specific candidate or political party. There would be far more abuse of such a system than there already is.

 

[Si modo]

IRS regulations allow clergy to preach about moral or political issues, as long as they don’t favor one candidate over another.

Internal Revenue Service regulations forbid all tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organizations — including churches — from promoting or endorsing candidates.

Exactly right. No candidate can be favored, otherwise, free speech applies to all.

 

[eagleseven]

I don't see any legal or ethical issues for any Church to opine about political issues. They're not endorsing any candidate, just weighing in on one of the most pressing issue of the day.

Nobody questions the Church when they rally against abortion, so why now when they rally for healthcare reform?

Hell, the local parish here prays every week for humane healthcare reform to pass...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

IRS regulations allow clergy to preach about moral or political issues, as long as they don’t favor one candidate over another.

Internal Revenue Service regulations forbid all tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organizations — including churches — from promoting or endorsing candidates.

And yet all those black churches did EXACTLY that.

 

[Care4all]

IRS regulations allow clergy to preach about moral or political issues, as long as they don’t favor one candidate over another.

Internal Revenue Service regulations forbid all tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organizations — including churches — from promoting or endorsing candidates.

And yet all those black churches did EXACTLY that.

No need to remind me about that rgs....I was a huge Clinton supporter!

 

[Care4all]

But, you and the Satanic Monkey Breath Cult pay taxes.

Catholics pay taxes too, but not for being catholic. Neither do the Satanic Monkeyites or I pay taxes for expressing our beliefs in a Constitutionaly protected manner.


Religious freedom is a right. Just like freedom of speech and of the press. The government has no protection from the people for peacably expressing those rights. That goes for gun ownersip as well.

The government has no obligation to provide you with a religion, a press, a speech forum or a gun... but it can not violate your rights to peacefully use them.




Unless you think health care is a "right" and Obamacare passes. Then a new legal precedent will have been set in which the government is indeed responsible, not for protecting your rights, but providing them. I look forward to USMB circa 20someting when the Republicans take charge and use Democrat tactics to force taxpayers to buy every adult citizen a rifle and handgun and the classes to use them safetly. It will be just as wrong then as healthcare is now... but fun to watch the usual suspects flip sides on the meaning of "rights".

Can this truly be argued and won, if it made it to the supreme court?

Unless you think health care is a "right" and Obamacare passes. Then a new legal precedent will have been set in which the government is indeed responsible, not for protecting your rights, but providing them.

The reason I ask is;

it would seem that mandatory Social Security Insurance taxes and Medicare Insurance taxes are precisely doing what you are presuming is not constitutional or is the "providing" of 'something'....by our government?

And it seems to me that SS and Medicare would be the gvt doing much more so, than this purported health care reform, even with the mandate in it. SS and Medicare are FORCED- (so to say and to keep on this 'theme'), upon us through mandatory taxation....

-there is no "out" as there is with forcing us all to buy insurance such as the paying of $695 dollars if you refuse...

that alone makes it fit more in to your statement that I focused on, don't you think?


-is the government responsible for your Retirement via SS taxes?

-is the government responsible and providing your medical care when you are a senior?

Do these two things really mean it is a "right" that all Americans, when they reach 65 etc, will receive a Retirement check, or receive medical care?

Can it not be, just some "programs" through representation....... that were legislated, at the bequest of the people and have nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or any inalienable rights or enumerated rights etc ?

Or, if the Constitution limits Congress's powers, and guarantees 'the peoples' rights, whether listed or not in the initial Bill of Rights, is health care a right...just one of the ones not listed?

And other than the "affordability credits", how is the government exactly providing for your health care? We are paying for our own health care insurance....THEY ARE NOT.

Whereas with SS retirement and medicare health care....the gvt is paying, although be it through taxing us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So all those black churches?

Black churches? Many black Americans attend the Catholic church which I attended as a youth. Of course the church was off white stucco, I don't think I've ever seen a totally black church.
I'm assuming of course you didn't mean a church attended by only black people, that of course in context would make you appear to be a racist.
Silly me, of course you're not. Right?

btw, notwithstanding your "black churches" comment, yes, I believe when a religious order of any type engages in political discourse and uses the authority of the church to tell people how to vote they should lose their tax exempt status.
Actually, I don't believe they should be exempt even if they do follow the law and not preach politics.

And your reason for this? You do understand the charity of the church is second to none?

No I don't.
For example:
The San Francisco Boys’ and Girls’ Home (SFBGH) is a San Francisco-based community program serving high-risk children and adolescents experiencing serious emotional, family, social, and educational problems. This program, a part of Catholic Charities CYO, offers a spectrum of services to children and adolescents regardless of race or religion.

SFBGH was developed in response to the need for a continuum of care. The San Francisco Boys’ and Girls’ Home consists of two group homes, categorized as level 12 under the DSS Rate Classification system and licensed by the Department of Social Services (DSS). The Boys’ and Girls’ Home also provides educational services in partnership with the San Francisco Unified School District.

A level 12 program recieves $5,302 each month for each child placed from the tax payers . Additionally, the children attend the public school system, at tax payer expense. Charity? Hardly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

where does it say in the constitution that you have to pay taxes in order for the Bill of Rights to cover you?

Wrong question. Being taxed on income is legal, being exempt is a privledge but should not be sacrosanct.

Article (Amendment XVI)

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.

A church should be able to deduct 'good works' from their income, as any business can today, but not be exempt from income taxes or the taxes imposed by local government on real estate or special districts, for they benefit from fire and police protection, clean water and sewer systems, etc.

 

[Care4all]

where does it say in the constitution that you have to pay taxes in order for the Bill of Rights to cover you?

Wrong question. Being taxed on income is legal, being exempt is a privledge but should not be sacrosanct.

Article (Amendment XVI)

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.

A church should be able to deduct 'good works' from their income, as any business can today, but not be exempt from income taxes or the taxes imposed by local government on real estate or special districts, for they benefit from fire and police protection, clean water and sewer systems, etc.

(Amendment XVI)

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived

derived has meaning here Catcher....

Religious institutions are not given any privileges that other tax exempt entities that congress determined are in the same category as them....

non profits are singled out
corporations are singled out
investment earnings are singled out
payroll earnings are singled out
tax exempts are singled out

WHY pick on only one of the above and choose them for your gripe?

here are just some of the institutions/entities that are tax exempt...

Religious,
Educational,
Charitable,
Scientific,
Literary,
Testing for Public Safety,
to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations

Civic Leagues,
Social Welfare Organizations,
and Local Associations of Employees

Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organizations

Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, Etc.

Social and Recreation Clubs

Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations

Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Associations

Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations

etc.

Types of Tax-Exempt Organizations

this isn't even 20% of the entities that are tax exempt according to our government.

WHY would you single out Churches or religious institutions and prevent THEM from getting a tax exempt status that other similar institutions as them get?

That my dear, WOULD BE breaking the Constitution.

care

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see any legal or ethical issues for any Church to opine about political issues. They're not endorsing any candidate, just weighing in on one of the most pressing issue of the day.

Nobody questions the Church when they rally against abortion, so why now when they rally for healthcare reform?

Hell, the local parish here prays every week for humane healthcare reform to pass...

So does ours. But they also pray that the process be honorable, honest, and above board. Anybody is free to draw their own conclusions whether the legislation to be voted on this weekend fulfills that criteria, but I think anybody with a brain will come to one conclusion about that.

 

[uscitizen]

The constitution clearly states that the govt shall not encourage nor discoruage religion.

By not making them pay their share of the taxes the govt is subsidizing them with sewer, water, fire, police , etc services that they do not pay for.


That is the difference from churches and other non profits.
Now if the church sets up a seperate non profit it should be tax exempt like any other non profit. However the church property and income should be taxed.

 

[Foxfyre]

The constitution clearly states that the govt shall not encourage nor discoruage religion.

By not making them pay their share of the taxes the govt is subsidizing them with sewer, water, fire, police , etc services that they do not pay for.


That is the difference from churches and other non profits.
Now if the church sets up a seperate non profit it should be tax exempt like any other non profit. However the church property and income should be taxed.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about encouraging or discouraging religion. It says that there will be no government establishment of religion and that the free exercise of one's religion is a basic right that the government will not infringe. In other words the federal government is authorized to neither reward any person or group for their religious beliefs nor can it punish any person or group for their religious beliefs. The religious must follow the law of the land as much as anybody else, but that requirement is applied uniformly among all recognized religious groups and those who support them.

The tax exempt status of religious groups is the same tax exempt status afforded to non-religious groups who qualify for not-for-profit status under the law. The Congress was within its constitutional authority to permit such tax-exempt status to such groups in the interest of the general welfare so long as it was given uniformly to all and without prejudice.

 

[GWV5903]

Black churches? Many black Americans attend the Catholic church which I attended as a youth. Of course the church was off white stucco, I don't think I've ever seen a totally black church.
I'm assuming of course you didn't mean a church attended by only black people, that of course in context would make you appear to be a racist.
Silly me, of course you're not. Right?

btw, notwithstanding your "black churches" comment, yes, I believe when a religious order of any type engages in political discourse and uses the authority of the church to tell people how to vote they should lose their tax exempt status.
Actually, I don't believe they should be exempt even if they do follow the law and not preach politics.

And your reason for this? You do understand the charity of the church is second to none?

No I don't.
For example:
The San Francisco Boys’ and Girls’ Home (SFBGH) is a San Francisco-based community program serving high-risk children and adolescents experiencing serious emotional, family, social, and educational problems. This program, a part of Catholic Charities CYO, offers a spectrum of services to children and adolescents regardless of race or religion.

SFBGH was developed in response to the need for a continuum of care. The San Francisco Boys’ and Girls’ Home consists of two group homes, categorized as level 12 under the DSS Rate Classification system and licensed by the Department of Social Services (DSS). The Boys’ and Girls’ Home also provides educational services in partnership with the San Francisco Unified School District.

A level 12 program recieves $5,302 each month for each child placed from the tax payers . Additionally, the children attend the public school system, at tax payer expense. Charity? Hardly.

Is this your example that the Church does not do charitable work? The State of California provides these funds to a youth home and you automatically classify it as not being charitable? They pay this same amount to Foster Parents as well, are you suggesting that they are not being charitable of their time and devotion to the downtrodden? No, what you have accomplished and what most conservatives have known for decades is your selfishness as a liberal knows no bounds.....how is it that you speak the mantra that these poor individuals are who you represent and speak for, yet you tear down the church that takes the time to provide them with a chance....grand hypocrisy is all you accomplish....

 

[del]

Did Catholic Bishops cross the line when they used their influence in the debate on healthcare.

I believe they did.

still haven't gotten over being raised catholic, huh?

 

[Ragnar]

Can this truly be argued and won, if it made it to the supreme court?

I don't think so. I was really taking issue with a sort of political game and the way the control of the language alters the debate. Perhaps "bastardization of the language" is more apt a phrase. (a game both sides play btw) In this case, calling health care a "right" when people of the left, and President Obama should say "entitlement". (hence the lol smiley)

The reason I ask is;

it would seem that mandatory Social Security Insurance taxes and Medicare Insurance taxes are precisely doing what you are presuming is not constitutional or is the "providing" of 'something'....by our government?

Well for the record, I'm not against the government providing, 'something' and using the Constitutional means, taxes, to provide Constitutionaly protected rights. The very preamble to the Constitution requires the government to "provide for the common defense" for example.

And it seems to me that SS and Medicare would be the gvt doing much more so, than this purported health care reform, even with the mandate in it. SS and Medicare are FORCED- (so to say and to keep on this 'theme'), upon us through mandatory taxation....

Well all government is "force", what is government after all but a legal monopoly on the use of force? Or to paraphrase George Washington government is 'like fire, a faithful servant and fearful master'. SS and Medicare are welfare, are entitlements not rights.

-there is no "out" as there is with forcing us all to buy insurance such as the paying of $695 dollars if you refuse...

that alone makes it fit more in to your statement that I focused on, don't you think?

I tend to agree however I would not go so far as to say a $695 dollar fee (or jailtime?) is an "out". I would also argue that HC, in the long run will cast far more than SS or medicare put together and end up needing a much more forceful taxation (or drop in service) but that's a seperate argument. So also are the rights of healthcare providers.

-is the government responsible for your Retirement via SS taxes?

IMO, no... except so far as the have already collected fees for the above under laws written that state some portion of those fees are to come back to me.

-is the government responsible and providing your medical care when you are a senior?

IMO, no... w/the above exception

Do these two things really mean it is a "right" that all Americans, when they reach 65 etc, will receive a Retirement check, or receive medical care?

No the only aspect that qualifies as a right in my opinion is that the government must keep it's prior promise and return tax money already confiscated for that stated purpose. I would not say, for instance, that they had the right to take it in the first place. However, we must live with the results now.

Can it not be, just some "programs" through representation....... that were legislated, at the bequest of the people and have nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or any inalienable rights or enumerated rights etc ?

Yes that's exactly right, er correct. Again, entitlement not a right.

Or, if the Constitution limits Congress's powers, and guarantees 'the peoples' rights, whether listed or not in the initial Bill of Rights, is health care a right...just one of the ones not listed?

IF the Constitution limits the power of congress! I think we've hit upon the nub of our disaggreement, lol. I'd say we have rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights without a doubt BUT... the federal government has no obligation (or legal right IMHO) to provide us with them.

And other than the "affordability credits", how is the government exactly providing for your health care? We are paying for our own health care insurance....THEY ARE NOT.

Well here the list of examples is nearly endless and deserves a seperate thread of its own but I'll note a few things:
- making me buy it by force
- allowing the abuse of interstate commerce clause
- endless regulations not least of which is forcing Ins. companies to sell coverages I may not want or need (raising cost)

Whereas with SS retirement and medicare health care....the gvt is paying, although be it through taxing us.

I'd argue that force is force, weather the beneficiary is the government itself or government approved companies.

Hat tip for asking thoughtful questions. I'm sure we disaggree a bunch but this kind of exchange is fun for me.

 

[rdean]

Did Catholic Bishops cross the line when they used their influence in the debate on healthcare.

I believe they did.

So you think all those Black Churches that supported Obama and used their pulpits to preach his election should lose their tax exempt status? Or is that different?

Just curious. How was the debate in your family. Surely your "African American" family members had some opinion. What was their response when you asked them that same exact thing?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Did Catholic Bishops cross the line when they used their influence in the debate on healthcare.

I believe they did.

Another Idiot that erroneously thinks that Jefferson's 'wall of separation' between church and State was to prevent believers from influence Government policy...

ROFL...


Leftists...

 

[Foxfyre]

Did Catholic Bishops cross the line when they used their influence in the debate on healthcare.

I believe they did.

Another Idiot that erroneously thinks that Jefferson's 'wall of separation' between church and State was to prevent believers from influence Government policy...

ROFL...


Leftists...

Yup. I don't know how many times that 'wall of separation' has been cited by anti-religionists as a restraint on people of faith. And yet even a cursory review of the history of that remark shows that it was coined as a metaphor to reassure the Danbury Baptists that they had absolutely nothing to fear from their government.

And government that is restrained from granting favors or preference to any religious group has nothing to fear from any religious group.