I just posted this as a comment to this article here on Gather: You don't have to worry about flagging this for Hate Speech, it's already been done and Gather claims it is NOT. Christians--I have a serious question for you that I need your help answering!
I thought it was important enough (and long enough) to give it its own space:
I'm only going to respond to something very specific that you brought up, your accusation that gays and lesbians are silencing freedom of speech by attacking the tax-exempt status of churches.
In the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Service grants tax-exempt status to certain organisations that meet a boatload of criteria. One such criterion is that a 501(c)3 organization refrain from certain lobbying and other political activities. A church, by definition of the IRS rules and regulations (law), cannot engage in non-insubstantial political activity or lobbying.
The so-called "attacks" being made against churches by gays and lesbians most recently have been made against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints over its involvement in the battle for/against Proposition 8 in California.
Since churches are not able to apply for exemption from substantial lobbying activities under IRS regulation 501(c)(h), it therefore is beholden to the restrictions placed upon all 501(c)3 tax-exempt organisations:
IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are permitted to lobby beyond an "insubstantial" degree only if they elect to qualify under IRC 501(h) by submitting IRS Form 5768, and obey the associated laws and regulations. However, not all IRC 501(c)(3) organization are permitted to make that election. The only organizations that may elect to lobby under IRC 501(h) are those described in IRC:
- Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (relating to educational institutions),
- Section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii) (relating to hospitals and medical research organizations),
- Section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) (relating to organizations supporting government schools),
- Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (relating to organizations publicly supported by charitable contributions),
- Section 509(a)(2) (relating to organizations publicly supported by admissions, sales, etc.), or
- Section 509(a)(3) (relating to organizations supporting certain types of public charities) [except that for purposes of this subparagraph, section 509(a)(3) shall be applied without regard to the last sentence of section 509(a)].
and which are not:
- (A) Described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches),
- (B) An integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches, or
- (C) A member of an affiliated group of organizations (within the meaning of section 4911(f)(2)) if one or more members of such group is described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
In summary, only certain classes of public charity may elect to qualify under IRC 501(h) and therefore engage in a substantial amount of lobbying activity. Religious institutions, their auxiliaries and affiliates, and private foundations do not qualify under IRC 501(h) and therefore are prohibited from more than an insubstantial amount of lobbying.
(source: Lobbying and Political Activity by Tax Exempt Organizations)
The site also states,
"Political activity" is not defined in the law regulating tax-exempt organizations with more detail that in IRC 501(c)(3), where it is "participat[ing] in, or interven[ing] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." However, "political expenditure" is defined in further detail. Note, however, that 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations may lose their tax-exempt recognition for any political activity, and not just for making political expenditures.
Thus, when a church spends $180,000 of its own money (which the Mormon Church did in California -- take a look here if you don't believe me -- there's a link from that page to the actual filing with the California government regarding the church's expenditures) to direct the outcome of a political campaign, it is pretty clear that it has violated the non-political activity regulation that 501(c)3 tax-exempt entities are required to abide by.
So this "attack" by gays and lesbians is nothing more than asking the law of this land to be upheld. As far as I'm concerned, the Mormon Church can lobby and say and do whatever it wants -- but if it's going to break the law, then it should be held accountable. And in this instance, being held accountable means having its tax-exempt status taken away from it. There's nothing to prevent the church from operating as a non-tax-exempt organisation now, is there?
For additional reference, please check out the following sites:
Political and Lobbying Activities - IRS web site
Personally, I think it's a shame that an organisation purporting to be in the name of Jesus Christ break the law in such a flagrant fashion and initially try to cover it (although to their credit, they did 'fess up, when push came to shove; however, push shouldn't have had to com to shove in order to get them to be honest from the get-go).
Of course, those who use Twitter can have been following the #Prop8 debacle for quite some time, now...
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 50
Greed and hypocrisy, maybe, but there is nothing that should keep any church from operating as a non-tax-exempt organization. I would like to see that status taken away from all of them.
Peter...good written article. I have a question though. Why do you hold these values to LDS and not to everyone? Shouldnt the 4 appointments that were found to be tax evaders burn you up? LDS shouldnt have donated money to a campaign. I agree there.
I am glad they "fessed up". Churches need the non-tax exemption in order to help fund so many public programs. Catholics as an example, during hurricane Ike, handed out MILLIONS of dollars to all the people that lost their homes in Houston and Galveston. The elderly, single mothers, poor, homeless, etc...all benefit from churches. They also offer food programs for people that have none due to a loss of a job or health condition restricting them from work. I even know of some churches that pay for the rent if someone is really trying to find work.
These are very important. Churches help bind the community together. It helps people be more charitable with their money and time. It helps people realize they should help others in need, just as Jesus told us to.
~M
I think the actions of the Mormon church in the campaign against Prop 8 were reprehensible but legal.
Hopefully, people will get disenchanted with religious groups and leaders who are trying to dictate every portion of their lives, not just parts affecting their individual souls. True followers of Christ will realize just how far their religious leaders have strayed from his teachings and leave the churches. That is my personal hope.
I've been saying that for years and could not possibly agree more!!!!
It is necessary for them to keep the tax exempt status. I would like to have stricter rules as to what defines a church though.
~M
Michael, I do hold all tax-exempt organizations to the same standard. I singled out the LDS church because of comments made in another post -- in fact, this article was actually (for the most part) a response to another article. When I saw how long my comment was, I dressed it up and threw it up here as an article.
Michael, I can't keep up with the news these days so could you point me to an article about the four appointments that were found to be tax-evaders that you're talking about? Thanks!
Nippy, to answer your question, yes, 501(c)3 not-for-profit organizations are allowed to conduct certain political activities, and are even allowed to lobby if they seek out 501(c)(h) exemption status. If you read my article, that's clearly explained there. Churches, however, like all religious organizations, are ineligible to apply for the 501(c)(h) status and therefore are unable to conduct any substantial lobbying activity. The web sites that I linked to, as well as quoted from, clearly state this.
Nippy, all non-profits are allowed to engage in a very limited amount of clearly-defined political activity. What the LDS church did in its campaign to pass Prop 8 in California, however, clearly goes beyond this definition ($180,000 directly contributed to the campaign, advocating in a uni-partisan manner, conducting uni-partisan "educational" seminars, etc ... this all is clearly against IRS regulations for organizations with tax-exempt status).
Sandy, Liz, Doyle, et al. who wish to see tax-exempt status taken away from all churches: I disagree. As Michael and others have pointed out, there are a lot of charitable purposes that churches fulfill in our nation (food and clothing pantries, aid to the poor, etc.). In fact, this is the very reason that churches were granted tax-exempt status in the first place, to better enable them to carry out such charitable endeavors.
Vickey, preaching from the pulpit is one thing and has to be considered very carefully. If the preaching turns into advocacy of a political aim, then--I believe--that that would cross the line for a religious organization. However, if it's just the preacher spouting out messages like "God hates fags!" then I believe that would remain protected as free speech and not interfere with the church's tax-exempt status (but IANAL so TINLA so PCYL if you really wish to know).
Lots of free help from the parishers for maintainance, mowing the lawn, cleaning the bathrooms etc....My sisters church does pay a little to these volunteers. $10.00 bucks!
I was happy to listen to my daughter's choir. My daughter likes the religion that she chose. I'm afraid that this minister serves to reinforce my reasons for avoiding organized religion. It is too close to insanity for me.
For me there is much too much church in bed with politics. Yes, there is much charitable giving by religious organizations and you know what? For their charity they ought get tax breaks just like the rest of us. In my opinion they get a free ride. And then there is that free ride for the priestly pedophiles [where so many more charitable monies could have gone].
"...it's not how much money goes to the church's charitable ends, it's the fact that the church provides charitable services at all."
Churches would still provide charitable services...this argument is wholly without merit.
"Vickey, preaching from the pulpit is one thing and has to be considered very carefully. If the preaching turns into advocacy of a political aim, then--I believe--that that would cross the line for a religious organization. "
Did you miss the call from the pulpit to deny communion to anyone who supported pro-abortion candidates? Did I miss the call for a denial of communion to the pro-war, pro-torure supporters? Revs. Jesse Jackson, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Jeremiah Wright and
Al Sharpton were never political? Did you not consider $85 million dollars in tax deductible donations used by a group in Boston alone to settle a case against pedophile victims in Boston alone? That money helped NOBODY!
Here are a few of the highlights.
US clerics accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.
Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female
Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.
Victims per priest: 55.7% with one victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).
Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8% elsewhere.
Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04)
So...$572,507,094 taken from the pool as TAX DEDUCTIBLE donations used to cover the sins of the church!
I also have to wonder...why should I have to finance a religious organization I do NOT believe in?? The Rev. Moon with his fleet of Silver Cloud vehicles...payed NO taxes.
When these people buy up millions of dollars of property...income from the property goes to $0. That cuts the previous income and the services from it's income are cut or taxes increased on the rest of us. Which means, I pay for these people and their ficken' myths. Why should I?
I'm not buying this crap for a second! Churches can live off their tax deductible donations...or not. Christians (like myself) can't help people? I'm not buying it!
Great article, Peter.
You know, Doyle, you really know how to make a point! I had never actually thought about tax-exempt entities using donated money to pay for their sins. But, that's true, isn't it? Yet folks keep giving money to them. At this point, I'm thinking all churches should have to pay taxes. For one thing, a lot of people wouldn't bother preaching any more and they'd have to admit they were doing it for the money. Another thing is that the folks who donate to the churches would start putting up a bigger stink and maybe do charitable acts on their own with their own money, rather than giving it to a church where half is going to support church workers and half goes to the charitable works.
Wow, Donald. Facts don't bother you at all, do they? ( *sigh* )
Ok people...pick up your hymnals...err...US constitutions and flip to the Bill of Rights.
(Johnny in the back row...that's the first 10 Ammendments...Mmm-kay?)
Now we see in the first ammendment something about churches. I want everyone to read from that first ammendment until the last word of the last ammendment...but stop reading when you see absolutely anything about taxes.
At least this way people will actually read the Bill of Rights.
Gotta run...schoolhouse Rock is on and I love that song..."I'm only a bill...sitting here on Capitol Hill." :o)
I guessed you missed the WHITE Rev. Pat Robertson stomping all around the country and endorsing all the WHITE GOP candidates...right? Did you catch the WHITE Pastor John Hagee's endorsement of WHITE McCain between breaths as he called the Catholic church the "Great Whore"??
Look...The WHITE candidate for president...in a church!
Stay away from those nasty FACTS, folks. They will prove you wrong all the time and who wants to be wrong?
Yeah. That's so unique for me too. :o)
Thanks, pal.
*Shakes head* "Only in black churches. Riiiiight."
Michael, are you an idiot who jumps to conclusions? Just curious by your response.
Angela M., Mar 5, 2009, 7:54pm EST
Does this mean all those good Christians will just let hungry people starve if they can't deduct their contributions?
(You know the type. The righteous indignation that starts with "I have a black friend...").
Doyle and a couple of others effectively pointed out the fallacy of your contention about Democrats and black churches. One has to be a fool not to recognize how the Evangelical churches have aided the Republican Party in their efforts to win elections over the years. There was a time when Republicans rejected religious intervention. They lost during those years. The churches have revived the party in a way that hasn't been seen since before the depression of the 1930s. There will probably always be political deference to Christian churches in this country. It's too bad, because only the taxpayers are being treated like second class citizens in the process.
I agree with all of the comments about tax exempt status. We should not have to subsidize churches or religion in any form. Religious affiliation is a private matter and any government sanction of it is unconstitutional.
I am an Ordained Minister.
I am a 501(c) 3 organization.
I am a corporation unto myself.
I am 'straight', 'vanilla', heterosexual, whatever you want to call it.
I hate politics and have never voted in my life.
What my Bible instructs me to do as all of the above and states is my number one goal is to show the love of God which is unconditional to everyone. It does not say to show the love of God to everyone except my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I am not to rally, harangue, harass, debauch, or cause harm to anyone, and that includes gays, lesbians, people of other creeds, colors, beliefs and cultures and being a minister of the Gospel I am held to an even higher standard than a lay person.
Having said all that I wish to say this, if The Mormon Church is involved in this they are wrong, if the LDS are being attacked it is because God has promised to remove His hedge of protection from those who discourage ANYONE from entering into His Kingdom. Any other church group involved in this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Those who wish to quote scripture about what they think the Bible says about homosexuality need to get into the original Greek and Hebrew texts and study the History. These scriptures were decreed in this particular Biblical era because the earth was not yet populated and people were to refrain from homosexual activity at that particular time so that we could 'be fruitful and multiply'.
The most popular version of the Bible is the KJV and NKJV among Christians. It is common knowledge that King James himself was a homosexual and the most reliable version being turned to by the Church was published under the King who was a Queen.
The Church needs to shut up and get out of the way, rendering unto Cesar what is Cesar's which is the decision and the Government needs to quit playing peek a boo and patty-your-butt and recognize the fact that love, unions and marriage go on regardless of gender specifics and stop degrading the quality of life for those who do not fit in their little homophobic square boxes with hanging chads.
Sorry for the rant ... I got carried away ... now I'm going to go and mutter to myself for a while ...
In the church we attend, for instance, the pastor is the only paid staff. Everything else is done by volunteers - cleaning, lawn care, secretarial work, everything. And the pastor's salary is controlled by the state and national boards. For our church, it amounts to only about 18% of what we give. Then, except for the costs of keeping the building heated and cooled, water, etc. the rest of the money goes to outreach and ministries.
I think this topic is very intresting, and i like hearing everyone opinion on it. Thanks.
this is shaping up to be almost as hot a topic as abortion. Peter, I hope to see you back soon!