These are two entirely different things. One is relevant, one is not.
This is relevant. If you want to argue that tax-exempt organizations shouldn’t be influencing legislation, that’s very logical.
However, that would also apply to tax-exempt organizations who try to support amnesty legislation for illegals, as well. It goes both ways.
Whether an organization truly adheres to its religious doctrine or not should be irrelevant to tax-exempt status. Should an Islamic tax-exempt organization be stripped of its tax-exempt status because its leaders and followers eat pork?
OK, then, all the AFA has to do is issue a similar unambiguous renunciation of intent to shape government policy to their religious preferences, and the matter can then be allowed to drop.
What OP did you read? What do you think the OP wants the government to do that AFA does not want the government to do? And how is there an individual vs. government issue here? If the government kicks immigrants out, how am I as an individual Christian supposed to welcome them? There’s no way for an individual to pick up the slack in this situation.
Just one problem here that I noticed, since we are talking about what one would expect a Christian to behave I have to say that what this group and what many Republicans are spinning this does qualify as them becoming a “false witness against thy neighbours”.
And that was Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal and Marc Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute.
As I think I mentioned above, their tax-exempt status is not based on a religious conviction.
Let’s hold off on “Christian,” for a moment, since they don’t have to be Christian or religious at all to be a 501(c)(3). They must be neither organized or operated for the benefit of private financial interests, and no part of their net earnings may be distributed as profit. Exempt purposes include “religious,” to be sure, but also: charitable, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
“Charitable:” certainly I can say they are being charitable. Their last IRS Form 990 clearly establishes that they meet the definition of charitable.
There is no rule, IRS or otherwise, against a 501(c)(3) organization taking “pot-shots” at the President. And there is no rule that prohibits a 501(c)(3) organization from trying to influence legislation…as long as a substantial part of their activities is not trying to influence legislation.
You earlier laughed off any need on your part to understand the “substantial activity” test created by Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii). Here, however, you show exactly why you need to understand it.
A 501(c)(3) is allowed, under the law, to take pot shots at the President. If you believe this is untrue, then you don’t understand the statute and caselaw that applies it. You might peruse 1955’s Seasongood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 227 F. 2d 907, (6th Cir.) for an illustration:
Now can we get back to “Christian,” at least insofar as it pertains to reconciling their “Statement of Faith” with their statement of policy preferences?
I don’t see an automatic conflict between the two. Even if they believe that the Bible is inerrant and the sole source of authority, they can certainly find Biblical support for their opposition to relaxing immigration.
Certainly I did not see anything in their Statement of Faith that required them to advocate for government adoption of Christian principles. They can, as I read it consistently argue that individuals should be bound by the words of the Bible in their personal lives, but that our secular government isn’t.
I see the hypocrisy from the AFA on both the religious and secular angles.
Besides the religious one it is clear that a lie is being made about how the secure the border is regarding this issue (kids give up to the authorities, they are not evading) I would think that eventually the ones that will have to render a judgement, in the legislative or judicial areas will have to tell the ones making this complaint that a lie does not fly in the secular world either.
In the moral front, the evidence is pointing that this is a humanitarian crisis, reducing it to a border one is really misleading and inhumane indeed.
In addition to their strident opposition to SSM, which is explicitly rooted in their interpretation of the Bible, the AFA has also protested Rep. Keith Ellison taking his oath of office on a Koran, and the recitation of a Hindu prayer before Congress. Both incidents were explicitly rejected due to their non-Christian nature. In 2010, the AFA published an editorial arguing that Muslims should not receive 1st amendment religious protections.
Also, no discussion of the AFA is complete without reminding people that they’ve been classified as a hate group by the SPLC since 2005.
Bricker, just because 501(c)(3) status doesn’t hinge on religious conviction doesn’t mean that there isn’t fraud going on here. In the specific case we’re talking about, the AFA makes Christian-sounding noises in order to receive their tax-exempt status, but then reverses course in practice (not to mention trying to influence legislation).
It isn’t fraud when any 501(c)(3) organization behaves in an un-Christian manner, but it is when the AFA does it, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status.
Now, what % of their activity can be characterized as inappropriately political would take more scrutiny to resolve. But since their un-Christian behavior makes it clear that they lied on their application for 501(c)(3) status, maybe we don’t have to bother. It comes down to simple fraud.
If an Islamic tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization promoted the eating of pork, should they be stripped of tax-exempt status? After all, their behavior would be “un-Islamic.”
As I cited above the AFA qualifies as a 501(c)(3) charity. What makes you believe that any “Christian noises” they make are what qualifies them for 501(c)(3)?
It isn’t fraud when any 501(c)(3) organization behaves in an un-Christian manner, but it is when the AFA does it, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status.
Cite, please, that their 501(c)(3) status rests on any lie? Specifically, cite that their claim to being Christian is the sole basis of their application for their tax-exempt status.
Also, it opens a **huge **can of worms and slippery slope for the *government * to decide what constitutes “Christian” views - to be deciding, “This organization’s stance is Christian, this stance is un-Christian.”
Do we want the **government **deciding what qualifies as “Christian?” What’s next, stripping a Christian charity of tax-exempt status because they don’t believe in the existence of purgatory?
That’s not a red herring. It’s a very relevant test of the proposition. Try2B says that when the AFA acts contrary to Christian values, it invalidates their 501(c)(3) status, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status.
It’s relevant to ask if that principle would also apply to an Islamic tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization promoted the eating of pork.
