Freedom From Religion Foundation Sues IRS Over Political Activity By Churches, Religious Groups

I'm glad to see it. Churches should NOT tell people how to vote. I'm glad Best agrees, even though most churches, just like the ones quoted in the article, urge people to vote Republican.

Hi O No,

Should churches, and particularly pastors, discuss issues such as abortion, gay marriage, promiscuity, and other such issues in the pulpit and in Bible studies?  

If you say yes, then most often that alone tells a person who to vote for and why.  Most often, the candidate names never have to be mentioned.

If you say no, do you think Jesus and the early apostles would have avoided such issues just to keep the secular civil leaders happy?

My Friend, which way would you have it?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Good point Bill. Just because a preacher shares his opinions does not mean he is "electioneering." Now if they were using tithes to make campaign contributions I could go along with it. This is another attempt to choke out religion by taking away revenue.

Wright, with the billions of dollars the churches have, the millions they rake in each year, how in the world would making them pay taxes "choke out religion"? I'm serious, how would that do them any harm? And yes, they push their political agendas from the pulpit. Both parties do it, the democrats just as much or more, as republicans.

taxthechurches.org

It was the fervent hope of the founders of our great nation that its government would not tresspass on the province of religion, and that religion would find neither refuge nor condemnation from a secular government. The founders' committment to this idea was unequivocal. The very first words of the Bill of Rights read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Whether you interpret that statement as an originalist, papist, feminist, or any other -ist, exempting religious organizations from paying taxes is a clear case of our government "respecting an establishment of religion," precisely what the framers intended to prohibit.

This is notto suggest that you abandon your church or your faith. For one thing, any religious organization that lives up to its commitments to its congregation and community would have nothing to fear from filing a tax return, just like every other non-profit. For another, when these institutions pay taxes like every other non-profit, each citizen's tax burden is significantly lessened and consequently he or she maybetter endow a worthy institution with individual support.

It is the flip side of the same coin: as your right to practice a religion must be respected by government, it may not support churches by tax subsidies or any other means.

WHY YOU CARE:

Because it's unconstitutional. It will be obvious to rational people that exempting religious organizations from paying any taxes is a clear case of government "respecting an establishment of religion." But throughout history we have seen many otherwise-lucid thinkers insist otherwise, including Supreme Court justices who uphold biblical views when their taxpayer-funded jobs explicitly require them to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Because religious organizations are not accountable to the citizens who subsidize them. If churches engage in charitable work that benefits the community, do all citizens have an interest in supporting such endeavors with, say, various tax exemptions? Of course. This is the sound basis for tax exemptions for non-profit organizations, whose activities and finances are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny. In the case of religious organizations, however, the books are closed.

Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches.

So what if churches do not engage in charitable work? Or do so far less efficiently, effectively - or charitably - than the many non-profits or government programs we do not subsidize in this way? Religious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status. Many amass great wealth and vast media empires - all of it off the tax rolls. The point is that religious organizations can and do espouse doctrines of intolerance and hatred, filter funds to foreign enemies, and cause far more harm than good in their communities. They are nevertheless entirely tax-exempt, their finances never scrutinized, because they qualify as "religious organizations."

Tax-exempt status is a privilege - not a right - and churches should be held to the same standards as other non-profits - if not higher standards.

Because it is easily and routinely abused. Consider the proliferation of phony churches as a tax dodge. An IRS attorney cites a brothel "church," where sisterly love is offered to male parishioners in exchange for donations. In Hardenburgh, New York several years ago, 235 of the 239 property owners in that town were granted religious tax exemption because the properties of the owners were made branches of the mail-order "Universal Life Church." In Wisconsin, hotels, pay parking lots, farms, and communion wafer bakeries are among the church holdings that are tax exempt. Overall, at least $4.2 billion in tax-exempt religious property now exists in that state alone. And the monumental moral corruption of the Catholic Church as evidenced by the many sexual abuse scandals is particularly galling when one contemplates the vast (and covert) wealth of that particular enterprise.

It's a racket, and it costs taxpayers even more money to monitor, uncover and fight the abuse it invites - none of which would be necessary if such unenforceable loopholes in our tax code never existed.

Because it costs you and me billions. We are not talking chump change here. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S. All tax free.

Because the founders got it right.These thoughtful men were conscentious students of history, many of them witnessing firsthand the bloody devastation wrought wherever religion entangled itself with government on foreign s****s - and our own. The founders saw that without a strict separation between religion and government, the same tragedy would inevitably be replayed here.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these s****s the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -James Madison

Because it is fundamentally unjust. Not all religious organizations enjoys tax breaks, only those our government deems legitimate. Is government in the business of deciding what is or is not a legitimate religion? Doesn't every instance where government makes such a determination amount to "respecting an establishment of religion?" Should the taxes of non-religious citizens be higher to subsidize every church, synagogue, and mosque in town? Should working women pay taxes to subsidize clergy and other employees' paychecks, when such positions are overwhelmingly - and legally - restricted to men?

The current scheme is unfair and unnecessary. Churches can and should pay taxes, just like everybody else.

Because our country is not supposed to be a theocracy. It is not a new idea: tax exemption for religious organizations has been debated since the birth of our great nation. istorically, far from the accepted status quo, the subsidy of religious organizations via carte blanche tax exemptions has troubled patriots and conscientious religious citizens alike. Since our Consititution was written our nation has witnessed an overall upsurge in the deliberate mingling of government with religion, to the point that the two institutions at times have appeared nearly indistinguishable. Perhaps emboldened by the cowardice and arrogance displayed by our nation's highest court and the apathy of so many citizens, religious zealots now hold our highest offices and have infiltrated every single branch of government, upholding biblical views when their taxpayer-funded jobs explicitly require them to uphold the Constitution of the United States instead.

Because it makes no sense. To deny that tax exemption is a meaningful public subsidy is to put forth an absurd proposition: just consider what your personal financial picture would look like if you never paid any taxes. Yet it is exactly this type of ludicrous logic on which religious tax exemptions have been upheld time and again by our courts and congresses. See LAW for more.

"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. We have no king but Jesus."
-Fmr. Attorney General John Ashcroft

"[I]ntentional governmental advancement of religion is sometimes required by the Free Exercise Clause."
-Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia

________________________________

TAX THE CHURCHES DOES NOT WANT YOUR MONEY.
SERIOUSLY.

WE WANT YOU TO DO THIS:
The next time Congress is looking for an extra couple billion to finance a war, tell them to look no further than an income tax on religious payroll. Better yet, tell them today, and let them know you intend to VOTE accordingly.

We love our county. And our freedom. Remember freedom?
Tax the Churches.

taxthechurches.org

It costs money to run a church. There are many weeks the tithe does not cover the budget at my Church. If you levied tax on that, it would be much harder to operate churches across the nation. Not every church pulls in the money of the televangelists. I've never seen a pastor "push" a political agenda. I have seen human men, in a pastoral role, tell the congregation which biblical principles are important to him regarding his vote. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it.

==================

It costs money to run anything, businesses, households etc. Less money in the "plate" would mean less taxes due. That human man in pastoral robes isn't supposed to be discussing politics and trying to influence other's votes, in his church.

I suppose we all see things differently

First, most churches do not have the "billions" of which you speak.  The majority of Protestant churches are small congregations with very little money.  Yet, we do manage to help support missionaries and do other things to share God's Gospel with the world.

Second, I personally do not believe it is the money which concerns you -- it is the fact that you hate all things related to God, the church, and Christianity.  Why?  I have no idea.   But, you have made it very obvious that is true.   Tax exemptions is not the issue, it is only the most convenient way you can find to attack the Christian faith.

And, whey you say, "That human man in pastoral robes isn't supposed to be discussing politics and trying to influence other's votes, in his church" -- thank God more rational minds than you have agreed that he can speak on the issues.

If I go into a pulpit and tell folks I am anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage -- I have that right.  No, I cannot use the pulpit to tell folks who to vote for, by name (although you are right that both parties do, especially the Democrats) -- but, if John Smith is a pro-abortion candidate, and Al Jones is a pro-life candidate; I can most certainly tell folks, from the pulpit or anywhere -- to vote FOR LIFE. 

And, praise God, the founding fathers of America gave me that right, in the First Amendment.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

I suppose we all see things differently

*******************

So it seems. I wonder if those preachers ever stop to think they may be insulting some of their "flock" when they start politicking from the pulpit. They didn't discuss politics in the church I attended, but I still knew that the congregation was made up of both parties. I know that churches today tend to group together, the democrats find the one that pushes the democrats agenda, the republicans find the one that goes along with their political beliefs, so what happens if some new visitor/member takes offense to the political sermon being given? Are they ignored, made to feel unwelcome, kinda eased out? Face it, there is no separation of church and state, and I wonder too, why wouldn't the churches be glad to pay taxes?

 Given the way they carry on about how patriotic they all are, and again I stress that is all of them, democrats and republicans, it would seem they would be fighting to pay something back to the country they claim to love. It's not right that a few people, the taxpayers, are asked to shoulder all of the burden. Government comes to us all the time demanding more and more. It's time for fairness. It's time everyone stepped up and paid.

Great post, Jenn.

Semi, it's funny that with all the cries of "make the rich/big business pay", nothing very much is said about the churches. 

taxthechurches

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Whether you interpret that statement as an originalist, papist, feminist, or any other -ist, exempting religious organizations from paying taxes is a clear case of our government "respecting an establishment of religion," precisely what the framers intended to prohibit.

best you don't report any monies as charity to lessen your tax obligation do you?

___________________________

I agree whole heartedly! This is the exact same argument that many of us who believe big corporations and the very rich should pay their fair share of taxes have been saying.

_______________

I would argue exactly the opposite.  Taxation requires a law.  Lack of taxation does not.  The reason there are laws in effect regarding tax exemption for churches is to first define which organizations are exempt from laws that have been passed concerning taxation, and then to have them prove they qualify.  In fact the power to tax an organization is the power to exercise a certain amount of control over it, and that is precisely what the framers intended to prohibit.

Let's look at your idea for taxing church income.  I'm only guessing here, but I'm betting that 99.999% of churches, even if their "income" was subject to taxation, would not pay any income taxes.  Most churches, with a few notable exceptions, run on a zero based budget.  All gross revenue is generally spent.  Income tax is, generally speaking, based on net revenue, which for most churches would be zero.  Zero net revenue, zero taxable income, zero taxes. 

Churches are a subset of not-for-profit organizations.  Are you going to tax all not-for-profit organizations?  How?  They are by definition, not-for-profit.

A few minor points on the article.

A.) Property (ad valorem) tax is a state tax. Petitioning Congress will have no effect.

B.) church payroll is taxable income......on the payee

C.) churches (in Alabama) pay sales and use tax.

Those pushing for the IRS to begin collecting taxes from churches are assisting the numerous churches where preachers have overtly violated the "Johnson Amendment," the law that LBJ got passed that prohibits political activity by churches.  These churches are defying the law and notifying the IRS of their actions in hopes of getting this issue into court.  It is their aim to get the courts to declare the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional.  So, whether as a consequence of these defiant actions or of the lawsuit filed by the litigation-obsessed atheists of the FFRF, it is beginning to look more and more like this issue will get its day in court.

This topic piqued my interest (shouldn't they all ) and I did a little perusing.

Found this article: http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

From within, this "nice" little reminder:

"The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution bars the US government from limiting the free expression of religion. By demanding church taxes, the government becomes empowered to penalize or shut down churches if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."