Should churches be allowed to endorse candidates or parties without risking their tax-exempt status?

[ZombieHorde]

IRS Probes Pastor's Huckabee Endorsement
By GILLIAN FLACCUS

BUENA PARK, Calif. (AP) — A Southern Baptist preacher who endorsed GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on church letterhead said Wednesday he was being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for mixing religion with politics.

Rev. Wiley Drake, a prominent pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, said he received a 14-page letter from the IRS on Feb. 7.

Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but they cannot endorse candidates or parties without risking their tax-exempt status. Most who do so receive a warning.

On Aug. 11, Drake wrote a press release on letterhead from the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park that announced his personal endorsement of Huckabee and asked all Southern Baptists to get behind the candidate.

"After very serious prayer and consideration, I announce today that I am going to personally endorse Mike Huckabee," the release said. "I ask all of my Southern Baptist brothers and sister to consider getting behind Mike and helping him all you can."

He continued: "I believe God has chosen Mike for such an hour, and I believe of all those running Mike Huckabee will listen to God."

--------
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjm0zUi-ujjFYgD3nfQjQvxAT9uwD8UPPC5G1
--------

[Critters2]

1. Idiot. He did this knowing full well it's illegal.

They teach you this on day 2 of Church Administration 101. His church should lose its 501c3 status. And fire his "prominent pastor" ass.

[cosmik debris]

2. Churches should not be tax exempt period. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

5. Why shouldn't churches be tax exempt?

[cosmik debris]

15. Why should churches be tax exempt? n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. If they can show that they provide free or low cost benefits

to the general population, just as other non-profits are required to do, then they should be allowed tax exempt status. But the application should be the same as it is for secular non-profits.

[cosmik debris]

19. If, if, if,

IF their only function was to provide a public benefit, I would not object. But of course that is not the case. And I really don't like having to subsidize their other functions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. Like I said,

I think they should be held to the same standards and requirements of other non-profits. I don't know if you have been involved with non-profits here or not, but as you know from my other posts, I have. I've set up a couple of them, and know the requirements for the rest. In each of the secular non-profits as well as the religious one, there were beliefs espoused that not everyone in the community agreed with. For example, the economic development group was strongly criticized because we thought up ways to bring "outlanders" to the area, and some in the community actually didn't want tourists around at all. In the animal rescue non-profit, we had a HUGE group of people object to us wanting to build a centrally located shelter for strays, and another group that objected to our low cost spay/neuter program as it would "hurt commerce". And the health non-profit I'm involved with now is controversial because of its commitment to using a holistic approach to disease. So you can see that the functions of any non-profit can be controversial, and not be something that everyone will agree with. So would you solution be to not have any non-profits at all? I assure you that the objections and concerns registered by opponents to these non-profits were just as strong and vehement as yours.

[cosmik debris]

23. And like I said

IF their only function was to provide a public benefit, I would not object.

But we know that is not the case.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I understand your objections

just realize that even secular non-profits have people opposed to their philosophies and agendas. I still remember the man who came with a shot gun to our temporary shelter, to "show" us the "right" way to handle strays. To his mind, our actions were insidious and not good.

[skepticscott]

40. The difference is

that the Constitution does not prohibit government from promoting or assisting those other "philosophies and agendas". The US Constitution and many state constitutions DO forbid government from promoting religious practice or providing public funds, directly or indirectly, to religious organizations.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. Oh, I agree with strict seperation of church and state

That's one reason I think that all charities should use the same paperwork to apply for non-profit status. As you may know, in many states there is a special 501c3-R classification for religious groups. I think it should be done away with. If a charity is affiliated with a religious institution, and is doing work for the good of the general population, apply for the same 501c3 as everyone else. And NO government grants should go to religious institutions--only to non-profits with strictly stated sectarian goals.

[skepticscott]

49. Many people ask

in situations like this, why religion is singled out for what, to them, appears to be discriminatory treatment. They why to know why religion should be treated differently. Well, in a nutshell, because the Constitution says it's different. The Framers were well aware (and the fact has not changed since then), that government support for religion has a far greater potential for social disruption than government support for just about anything else. Government support for such things as feeding hungry people, scientific research, education and the arts is of a completely different order.

[zonmoy]

27. the parts of their funds that actually goes to helping the less fortunate

should be tax exempt but churches themselves should not be.

[cosmik debris]

30. That may be a reasonable compromise, but...

Have you ever known churches to compromise?

[mac2]

31. Many clergy of tax exempt status won't allow their

congregation to see the books. The government and the congregation should have full access to any religious or non-profit organization claiming tax exemption. It's not...oh you can't see since god is on my side.

Too much fraud and oppression happens when a clergy does this to his congregation. I as a tax payer who gives to the Faith Based Charity want to know where and for what purpose my money is spent. No big cathedrals or mountain retreats should be paid for with public dollars.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. Only know the law in my state

but it says that any member of a non-profit organization has the right to demand to see the books. And the minutes (which include a treasurer's report) must be open for inspection at all times. One way any group can get around this is to restrict membership--but it is actually harder to do so for a church, since there is a rite that conveys membership and most members pay regular tithe. I think the problem is that few people realize they have the right to look over records. But I have observed battle royals within Baptist churches over this very thing. It can get really ugly, and sometimes results in the oldest members being thrown out, trashing of facilities, and sometimes even court proceedings about fraud.

[John Gauger]

34. Why should they be?

[Tesha]

56. Because they are basically clubs, operated for the benefit of their members.

Actual charitable, non-evangelistic good work that the
churches do should obviously remain tax deductible (as
it is for you or I or any business), but most of the
financial activity supported by church donations merely
goes to maintaingthe club, the club house, and the
management hierarchy of the club.

Tesha

[hobbit709]

7. That's what Jefferson and Madison thought.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. did they have non-profit corporations in their time?

I know there were libraries and volunteer fire companies, but I don't think they were incorporated--were they?

[hobbit709]

13. Here's what he thought of corporations.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. thanks for the quote

but it addresses "moneyed corporations", not volunteer fire companies and libraries, neither of which at the time were "moneyed corporations", I believe, but rather groups brought together for mutual benefits. Were they incorporated at the time? Were there non-profit corporations at the time?

[John Gauger]

35. Corporations were a little different back then.

They were only chartered for a set period of time. They had to have a specified purpose to provide a public service, such as to build a bridge or a road. Once that task was completed, the corporation was dissolved. And there was no law saying that corporations were legally required to return a profit to their investors. And they most certainly were not considered persons with all the rights but none of the responsibilities of a human being. They existed to serve the public. After a while the investors felt that it was harmful for the public welfare for an investment opportunity to exist that did not guarantee a profit, so they convinced Congress to pass a law forcing corporations to do everything within their power to turn a profit, which, funny enough, would down the road conflict with a whole bunch of other laws.

Early in our history there were no such things as "for-profit" and "not-for-profit" corporations. When Franklin started his library, it didn't legally exist as an entity, to my knowledge. Same with the early volunteer fire departments.

[mac2]

37. Not really...

The British East India Trading Corporation was huge. It controlled most our trade, etc. It was world wide as the British ruled the seas, etc. When they wouldn't let us grow our own stuff...we got angry. They taxed items to remove them from our markets, etc.

[John Gauger]

55. That was a British corporation.

I'm talking about American corporations after the British crown was expelled. There was a time in this country when corporations were not for profit. I'm not certain how long it lasted, but I know that it was at least for a brief period this way.

And I think you mean the West India company. The East India Company controlled India.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. thanks for the history lesson

I was thinking that corporations used to be different.

[mac2]

32. Yes

The British East Indian Trading corporation is the reason we went to war with Britain. Corporaions are very old.

[mac2]

8. I agree

They have grown so rich and powerful (tax exemption and Faith Based cronyism) now they are trying to run the country. Little they care about our freedoms and democracy. They are bad citizens.

Tax exempt status was not in the Constitution. It was added later to our tax laws to allow them to help the poor. Now they don't help the poor but run politicans for President. Yes..take away their tax exempt status before they destroy us with religious wars and chaos.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I think you are overgeneralizing

in that not every church or religious group is rich or powerful.

I've been involved with non-profit, tax-exempt corporations for years. In my state, certain criteria must be met for an organization to get and to maintain their non-profit status. I disagree with the fact that it is easier to incorporate as a religious institution rather than a secular one (in other words, secular groups usually hire a lawyer to get things rolling; a church doesn't have to go to that expense, just show they are a religious group)--I think that all groups seeking non-profit tax exempt status should meet the same criteria.

That being said, I disagree with a total ban on religious groups being able to incorporate as a non-profit entity. Many religious groups offer real services that benefit the community. If you allow government to deny non-profit status to a religious group, what group is next? An environmental group? A group interested in animals?

No, best to allow everyone and anyone who wants to to apply for tax-exempt status. But make the application process the same.

[mac2]

38. Glad to hear you have that in your community

I haven't seen it too many other places. We lived in E. Tennessee in a small town. There were 40 Baptist churches. All different. At Xmas they helped the poor but otherwise no. The Salvation Army helped some battered women. The church would put you out if you left your husband even if he beat you. Not a good thing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. I believe that they should be held to the same tax exempt status

requirements of other non-profits (in some states, they are allowed to slide on things they must provide to the state). But I wouldn't go so far as to say religious groups could not apply for non-profit status, because that would open the door to other groups being denied the ability to form a non-profit organization. I've been on the Board of Directors of 4 non-profits, and only one was religious; all provided different services to the community. (the religious one provided a place for groups of all sorts to meet, have retreats, etc-all were welcome, btw; one was an animal rescue organization that sponsored low cost spay/neuter clinics; another was an economic development non-profit that found creative ways to bring jobs to the area, such as a recycling plant; the one I am currently on is a non-profit health education foundation that provides free lab testing/screenings and low cost health care) As you can see from this list, non-profits can be made up of many different groups, but in Arkansas at least they have to show they are doing something of benefit to the community.

[davidinalameda]

26. let's bring out the religion bashers!

:woohoo:

[mac2]

3. IRS should take away their tax exempt status

They continue to do this even though it means destroying our democracy. Freedom of religion becomes threatened by the most powerful group.

Baptists were thrown out of Europe for try to take over the government. Madison stuck up for them. I wish he hadn't.

[hobbit709]

4. Religion should not involve itself in affairs of the state

any more than the state should involve itself in matters of religion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Or, as Sharif Baba said to a Sufi gathering

when asked about politics: "Don't worry about politics; worry about soul."

That was what we were there for. The soul. Not politics. Wise word from a wise man.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

No-and I'm an ordained minister

in my religious order. All members of the Order are told that the Order will NOT endorse any political candidate anywhere--though as individuals (NOT as ministers) we can do so. This is one reason I don't mention my ordination very much here, and never say anything when I am posting about my pleasure or displeasure with any candidate.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Why shouldn't you be able to endorse as a minister?

Is it the fear that political organizations will disguise themselves as churches?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. No,

it is to make it very clear that my Order is NOT political. When I stand before the altar at Universal Worship, I am a representative of my Order, as much as my Pir (title for the head of the Order) is whenever he goes out to give a lecture or preside over Universal Worship or other ceremonies. My Pir made this very clear after 911 when he addressed reporters about Muslims in America. Our work is mostly esoteric-work on the individual. This is the heart of our practices. The other important part is to build bridges between different religions and to honor them all.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Those are fine goals...

But I don't see what they have to do with the government telling churches that they can not endorse without risk of loosing their tax exempt status. It seems like the reasons you gave are personal ones, not government ones.

[mac2]

29. Nope. I oppose any minister running for public office

UNLESS they resign their clergy position and not push their religious agenda on me. I told Jessie Jackson, Jr.(D-IL) that his clergy and political position is an insult to the Constitution and those who aren't of his religious group. Pick either or.

I get so sick of his minister status worn around his neck like anything he does or says is from his god. His mother was a very religious woman and his father a famous clergy (wouldn't vote for his father either). He picks the path of politics he should represent everyone including those of no religious faith.

[skepticscott]

41. In general, the answer is yes

Or perhaps to be more accurate, one reason for not allowing tax-exempt organizations (not JUST churches) to engage in partisan politics is that candidates for office could set up non-profits or use existing ones as tax-free conduits for funneling all of their contributions through.

[mac2]

42. Didn't Newt do this in Georgia when he ran for President, etc.?

He set up fake organizations for religious groups and they poured their money into them?

[mac2]

28. You can say what you want about a candidate

but not in front of your congregation to endorse their (or your organization) agenda. I have no problem with that if I'm not of your religious group.

[Critters2]

58. Exactly. I'm ordained, and everyone knows I'm a progressive Dem.

But I NEVER mention this from the pulpit or in any official context. And I never argue politics with parishioners. As a private individual, I'm a Democrat. As a clergyperson, I don't discuss politics.

[MercutioATC]

6. Other: Churches should not have tax-exempt status at all...

...and they should be free to endorse whomever they please.

[onehandle]

10. They're not. nt

[AndyTiedye]

20. Separation of Church and State — Not Only is it the Law, It is a Really Good Idea

because when you mix them, they explode. :nuke:

[mac2]

36. History proves this true

If one bothers to read about it. Modern day countries divided by religious strife exist even today. Our founding fathers wanted better for us. For two hundred years we have not had a religious war because of it.

Ask the people of Iran if religious government leaders is a good idea. Theocracies are oppressive and corrupt.

[John Gauger]

33. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt to begin with.

There isn't any reason for it.

[uberllama42]

47. The legal justification is that taxation violates the Free Exercise clause

of the First Amendment. If the government can tax churches, then it can tax churches out of existence. I don't know why this logic is not extended to newspapers. What keeps the government from taxing an unfriendly newspaper into shutting down? Taxation threatens the freedom of the press as much as it does the free exercise of religion. Levying taxes on unions endangers the freedom of assembly, and so forth. IMO, churches are getting a free pass they don't deserve.

If churches do secular non-profit work and want to apply for a tax exemption, that's fine. But exemptions for religious work constitute an improper subsidy which runs afoul of clear Supreme Court precedent. The Rehnquist and Roberts courts have ignored this precedent without overtly overturning it.

[mac2]

51. OK as a compromise how about the house of worship (or retirement homes) only

being tax free. Buying up whole towns, big plots of land, newspapers, apartment building, etc. go beyond being a religious organization. All this at time when local government need those tax dollars to function since our federal government can't. They have drown in "the bath tub of war and terror" spending.

Rev. Jerry Farwell owned almost a whole town in VA tax free. The tax payers who weren't of his religious group were required to pay for his public services of roads, plowing, police, firemen, etc. He should have shared the expense.

In the area where I live all sorts of Evangelical church buildings have expanded or been newly built. Considering this is a town of 90% Catholics that money do not come from locals in their congregation.

Because our high school auditorium wasn't big enough for graduation ceremonies, they held them at a local Baptist church. A high school graduate filed a complaint that she didn't want to enter this church since she did not approve of it. She lost the case.

At least two or three Lutheran type churches in my area have converted to Asian congregations. Strange that they would spring up with only that type group? They are mostly Chinese and I think the churches are bring them in (legally as church workers or as illegals). Good grief...churches being pathways to immigration into America. I'm not sure if they are real church organizations or not.

They are also buying homes in my subdivision using Asian Realtors. Nice scam is it not? I complained to my Republican state representative but have not had an answer. They all turn a blind eye.

We the American tax payers are paying out billions to these RW clergy without our permission and knowledge. They are growing wealthy on us. It is under the guise of helping the needy (who get little help). Check the Americans United for Church and State to see how many billions since Bush stole office.

How many new Evengelical churches in your area?

[uberllama42]

52. That would certainly limit the problem of people like Fallwell

Though I think my newspaper analogy still holds. Religious liberty is certainly important, but I don't see why it should be protected in a way that other First Amendment rights are not. The government taxes media outlets without stifling their free expression, so why should churches get an exemption? IMO, that violates the Establishment clause.

ETA: I'm not sure how many evangelical churches there are in the area. I live in Philadelphia. I wouldn't be surprised if there were real estate shenanigans going on under the recently expired Street Administration. The former mayor's brother is currently being investigated for tax evasion, so I wouldn't put that kind of thing past him. But I don't know much about evangelicals around here.

[struggle4progress]

53. IRS does not exempt from taxation business income of churches unrelated to nonprofit purpose

[John Gauger]

54. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

McCullough vs. Maryland.

Personally much more concerned about newspapers than churches. I guess I'm just Jeffersonian that way.

[moggie]

39. This is the guy who has called in a holy hit against his opponents

On two occasions he has asked his followers to pray for the deaths of members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, since AU made the IRS complaint. Whether he wants a bit of old-time smiting, or hopes one of his followers with a gun decides to help God, is this the sort of guy you want to finance with your tax dollars?

[mac2]

43. If this is true he should not be President since he would be

a dangerous man. He would take us to holy wars like Bush. Using the Christian warrior type agenda for America.

The head of the AU, Barry Lynn, is a minister too. He is protecting freedom of religion not destroying it. He does an excellent job of protecting our rights.

[moggie]

48. I was referring to Drake, not Huckleberry

Drake's not running for PotUS, though he is aiming to be president of the SBC. The SBC doesn't yet have the power to take the country to war.

Here's AU's article on the latest threat:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9669

He did much the same last August. The SBC is diseased, if one of their leaders can publicly and repeatedly call for Americans to be killed simply for wanting the law to be upheld.

[mac2]

50. Sorry, I thought you meant the Baptist candidate for President

Although Drake is part of all that. SBC is a anti-democracy religious organization. Shame on them since they prospered and were allowed to exist because of our freedom of religion laws in this country. In many other countries of the world they would be tossed out on their holy books (like in Europe when they were forced to flee here).

Making threats against someone's life (because they are a threat to your agenda) is a serious thing is it not? He is encouraging a hit period by some mentally ill person (like the ones we see at our colleges and schools,etc.).

News to Drake. The Bible says to keep your god and your government separate..what is Caesars,etc. Only personal ambition for power would ignore that.

As these religious organizations become fat and powerful in our country because of Faith Based Funding (cronyism for votes) and tax exempt status they want to force their beliefs and agenda on us. The only thing to do is to take that all away. The poor are not being helped but put on the streets.

Congress are you brave enough to do that to save both freedom of religion and our democracy (negating a theocratic rule)?

It was your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. That includes religious organization leaders who want to rule the world.

[Dorian Gray]

57. Absolutely not...

and the day my church starts in on political discussions is the day that I find a new church.