So, on the one hand we have:
And on the other hand we have a set of laws passed by Congress which declare that certain “nonprofit” (that is, religious, educational, or charitable) groups are tax-exempt, but in order to maintain that tax exemption they may not do things like endorse political candidates.
I presume that Bricker, being famous as a strict constructionist and all, is hoping that these pastors will lose the case and the IRS will proceed to yank their tax exemptions. Yes?
Question: does separation of Church and State go both ways?
In what way are you referring?
A lot more heat than light. Expect maybe a dozen.
The IRS doesn’t need to do anything–any religious congregation is based on the idea of compromise–to put it bluntly, seldom are congregates in perfect alignment with each other even on a good day. Throw in a pastor who endorsed a political candidate, and you have the makings of a blow-the-church-apart schism. You think gays in the church are a problem? Meh, try endorsing a dog catcher for office…
I can’t think of a finer verse describing the payoff of this idea then this one in the Bible, “for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”
I say, let it happen. The dumb-ass minister who decides to endorse is going to find out in about a week that attendance will drop, congregants will start announcing that they’re leaving the church (for every other reason then the true one), the collection plate becomes noticeably lighter, and your pastoral visits are filled with either obsequies behavior, or cool hostility–but very little respect for you.
Reap it and weep.
I hope you were joking, because I thought this was hilarious.
Setting aside the sniping over partisanship, which doesn’t strike me as very interesting, can we talk about the questions this raises?
The first question is whether there’s any benefit to a law that the government won’t repeal but won’t enforce consistently. At first blush I’m in agreement with Bricker: it doesn’t seem like a good idea.
But the more interesting questions are twofold:
I’m not sure what the argument would be for #1. Since I think that one’s existence as a church shouldn’t be sufficient to gain tax-exempt status, it’s hard for me to answer #2.
My deeper question is how it’s constitutional for churches to even have tax exempt status. “…shall make no law…” should include carved out exemptions, no?
The issue of whether the churches themselves keep their tax-exempt status is not, I think, really the issue here. (I’ve heard quite a lot of Clinton and Obama bashing while taking my grandma to church, and like everyone said, no one really seems to be taking it seriously.)
I think that the end goal is to make the contributions tax-deductible for the “parishioners”, so that people are able to make unlimited amounts of political donations (to a “church” which simply exists as a party organ) and write them off as a charitable contribution. This strikes me as a poor idea and will lead to all kinds of unpleasantness with the IRS having to figure out what is a church and what isn’t. The status quo may be a little silly but it seems a reasonable compromise - the IRS won’t judge is a church as long as it avoids certain behaviors.
We’ve been over this in other threads but you don’t have to be a church to have tax exempt status. If you think it’s a violation of the establishment clause can you explain how?
I have long thought the law was problematic, simply due to the difficulty of interpretation.
Examples:
My church was against Prop 8 (we ordain gays and lesbians), we regularly work for environmental issues as well, plus our work with the poor. Next week the Brady campaign people will be on our campus as well. Each of these is a political issue. At what point has our Minister stepped over the line? If he says that Gays and Lesbians should have the right to marry - but does not say the words “Prop 8” - are we in the clear?
How about the black churches in Florida that would take advantage of Sunday voting to run “get out the vote drives”? Are they OK as long as they don’t mention a candidate?
I WANT churches to specify how their faith instructs their political thoughts as well.
It doesn’t seem that the issue is whether the churches themselves will be tax-exempt- there are all sorts of tax-exempt organizations and I’m sure the churches could fall into one of the categories other than 501©(3). 501©(3) status is what allows me to deduct my contribution from my taxes. For example, labor organizations can be tax exempt under 501©(5) and therefore don’t pay tax on their income, but I can’t deduct a donation to a union as a charitable donation on my tax return. Political organizations are also tax-exempt under a different section, but again, my donations are not tax deductible.
And they can- what they currently aren’t permitted to do is endorse a specific candidate , donate money to political campaigns or engage in more than a certain amount of lobbying. There’s no restriction regarding what a minister says or does as a private individual , only when he or she is acting as a leader of the organization at official functions and in official publications.
I’ll throw out a cite to the IRS exemption requirements for 501 (C) (3) organizations with links to relevant definitions therein.
I think this is a foolish move on the part of the churches. I think the rules for acquiring/maintaining tax exempt status are constitutional, and the churches should lose the lawsuit and their exemptions.
I don’t believe the First Amendment prevents the government from conditioning a privilege on adherence to reasonable regulations. A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. The churches may choose to be taxed normally and undertake all the political activity they wish, or they may choose to be exempt and refrain from such activity like any other exempt organization.
Sure - but this still leaves a ton of room.
Can they endorse the idea that gays and lesbians have the right to marry, when that issue is on the ballot?
“…it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
(emphasis mine)
Of course, the argument over the definition of “substantial” is what makes lawyers money.
If the IRS does in fact take enforcement action of course we’ll be inundated with “christian persecution” sob stories in the media. The so-called “conservative christians” squeel like stuck pigs if someone has the temerity to call bullshit on even their more egregious abuses…just imagine the martyrdom value of a fight with the satanic IRS!
SS
I don’t know that I’d call it endorsing the idea, but they can certainly make statements saying that the ABC church believes that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.( just as other churches can make statements that those churches believe gay marriage or abortion or contraception are immoral and should be illegal) What they may not be able to do is say “Vote “Yes” on Proposition 42” and they certainly can’t say " Vote for candidate X- he’s in favor of same sex marriage". And again, this is in official publications and at official functions. You minister can say any of those things if she’s having an unofficial beer with you on Saturday night.
I know the unofficial stuff, and I know what the law says (or at least its summary).
My point, that I am very poorly making, is that the Minister can stand up for 4 Sundays straight leading up the election with Eight - count them - 8! points on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.
Now - he is not outright SAYING that we should vote down Prop 8. But we certainly would know what he is pushing. Nor would he be in violation of the letter of the law.
Is that what we want?
I think that using the taxing power as a way to get at rights they can’t get at through legislation is a problem, however. Is it a good idea for us to make churches tax exempt or not? If it is, then they should be unconditionally tax exempt. If it is not, then they shouldn’t. Requiring them to censor themselves as a condition of being tax exempt is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speech, and it is selectively enforced.
I guess you could keep a rule saying that the church cannot endorse a candidate, but they should be able to say anything else they want. An endorsement is a very specific thing, whereas all the other politics that gets sermonized about in pretty much every religious institution in the country is a gray area.
Tax exemption for churches has been around since this country was founded. Restrictions on political activity go back only to 1954. The law was motivated by a certain pissed off politician you might have heard of (cough, LBJ) who was retaliating against a group that opposed him. The law was never even debated, he attached it to an unrelated bill. It has zero legitimacy. Which is why the IRS has been reluctant to enforce it.