If I say I believe in God, is my political speech organization now tax exempt?

[sfam]

Rev. Jay Scott Newman wrote in a letter to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, SC admonishing those who decided to vote for Obama by stating:

"Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/11/priest_calls_vote_for_obama_a.html


My question is a simple one: If the line separating church and state has blurred to this extent, is it time to remove it? By that I mean is it time to give all political speech organizations tax exempt status? If I contribute to MoveOn.org, should I be able to claim this on my taxes?

Either we as a society clean this shit up by holding these folks accountable by REMOVING their tax exempt status (and those who contribute to it), or we push for a change - either all have it or nobody does. Bottom line, these increasingly common attacks on democrats by the Flat Earth Society should not be tax exempt. I fully support Mr. Newman's right to say that voting for Barack Obama is a mortal sin - I just don't want to pay for it, or subsidize it. But this won't change unless there is real outcry against this stuff.

[gristy]

1. No

If I say I believe in God, is my political speech organization now tax exempt?
Not currently, and most certainly not ever. The last thing the gov't wants to do is provide a law that could effectively make all political donations tax exempt.

Here's an interesting article on the issue:


Backlash Against Tax Exemption Laws

By Austin Cline, About.com

It is an established fact of law and jurisprudence that charitable organizations, including churches, which have tax-exempt status are not allowed to participate in political campaigns on behalf of political candidates. Every attempt to challenge this situation in the courts has failed and resulted in a resounding defeat for those who want to have greater mixing of religion and politics. That is not, however, the end of the story.

A focus of recebt efforts is to make a direct change in how the laws read in order to ensure that churches can become fully active in political campaigns — endorsing some politicians, attacking others, and engaging in politics rather than theology from church pulpits. A pet project of Walter Jones that would effect these changes is titled “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act,” and one version reads thus:

An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, or to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3), or section 170(c)(2) (relating to charitable contributions), because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.

There was a great deal of opposition to this bill and to any similar changes in the tax laws — even from many members of the clergy who might be assumed to benefit the most from such changes. Why would this be a bad law?

more: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/politicalchurch.htm

[sfam]

2. As long as they remove the restriction relating to churches, I'm all for it...then again...

Then again, it would be somewhat humorous for MoveOn.org or a similar organization to declare themselves a religious organization, and to state that all their "speeches" and "comments" are from presentations during religious services. How could you prove this wrong? Considering its membership numbers, it might qualify to have enough members to be declared a religion. Bottom line, it would be a great test to send up to the Supreme Court. At that point, the court would have to re-affirm the separation or remove it.

And really, it would be odd for them to argue for anything other than a clear separation. Currently the separation has become FAR too blurred.