Mega-churches VS the IRS

[Racket_Man]

so it seems that some (and it seems that number have been increasing in the last decade) chruches, mega-chruches and the Catholic churchs are openlyh challanging the IRS. They are doing this by open, overt and sometimes over the top very politicized sermons even goinjg so far as to tell people who to vote for.

Now according to the IRS rules of charitable/relgioujs organizations, that organization can not be overt in reguards to politics. if they go full blown political they are in jeporady of losing their tax-exempt status. But it seems the IRS is not really doing anything to either shut this down or come up with some reasonable rules.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...o-far#comments

[Nekojin]

The government has no obligation to give them a tax break in the first place. It offers them one if they stick to some fairly basic rules. Break the rules, get a warning. Keep breaking the rules, lose your privilege.

Tax 'em.

[RedRoseSpiral]

I never understood why churches receive tax exemption, but then again I was the little girl in Sunday school telling the other kids Jesus and God are just lies parents tell their kids to make them be good...

[Jaden]

Religious institutions receive tax exemptions because they do a lot of charity work as organizations, and a lot of their income usually goes towards that. It's true that not all churches do a lot of charity work, but whatever you may think of them or their politics, most of them do. And, as has been mentioned, there are rules in place to govern how they keep their tax exempt status. They just need to be enforced.

[AdminAssistant]

It definitely needs to be scrutinized more closely. Or, better yet, ask churches to separate their charity work (tax exempt) and evangelical work (not tax exempt). Hell, can you imagine the boost to the economy from property taxes alone?

[Rapscallion]

Don't forget the howls of outrage.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

Is there some distinction made between non-profit organizations that are churches and all others? Should those other organizations (many museums, for example) also lose their tax exemptions across the board, or only if they wander outside the rules?

[Duelist925]

Is there some distinction made between non-profit organizations that are churches and all others? Should those other organizations (many museums, for example) also lose their tax exemptions across the board, or only if they wander outside the rules?

Only if they wander outside the rules.

[Andara Bledin]

Is there some distinction made between non-profit organizations that are churches and all others?

There are some distinctions.

The most notable is that charities have to have their financials public, as regards their statements while churches are not so required.

^-.-^

[Jason]

Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954. That’s when the rule known as the ‘Johnson Amendment’ was enacted. Churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS.

In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In retaliation, Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

[Nekojin]

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

I seem to have missed the part in the Bible that states, "Thou shalt vote Republican, and advertise for their campaigns."

Keep the politics out of religion, keep the religion out of politics. Pastors using their pulpit to advocate political issues or politicians is little more than using the influence of their station to push a personal agenda.

[bara]

Keep the politics out of religion, keep the religion out of politics. Pastors using their pulpit to advocate political issues or politicians is little more than using the influence of their station to push a personal agenda.

A good argument for keeping religion out of politics is prohibition. Which was primarily forced down peoples throats by many protestant religious groups at the time.


Nothing good came from this 'noble' experiment.

[Andara Bledin]

A good argument for keeping religion out of politics is prohibition. Which was primarily forced down peoples throats by many protestant religious groups at the time.

Interestingly enough, while prohibition's roots are firmly seated in religion, so were it's staunchest opponents (including the Roman Catholic Church, who held that the government should not define morality).

What really pushed it through, however, was plain old xenophobia. Alcohol was mostly sold in pubs, and pubs were mostly in city centers, and city centers were primarily filled with immigrants. The declaration of war against Gernamy essentially silenced all German-Americans, who were heavily on the wet side. Add in that women's suffrage was often tacked on with prohibition (women being the most common champions of the idea at the time, since it was largely men who drank to excess), and that added a whole new political angle that is often overlooked. And last, but not least, the income tax had just been re-introduced with wording to keep it from being repealed again, and it was believed that the funds from that would cover the shortfall that prohibition would introduce.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

Pretty much this. If you want to play, ya gotta pay.