-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/52830/can-we-please-just-tax-the-churches-already/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The catholic church is a political entity. They even have their own country! To say that they are not, is completely false. To engage in or politics here, could even be considered an act of war, but the Vatican has no military capability, so, nobody feels threatened by their manipulations.
However the gay scourge must me opposed and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
So tax the catholic church. They will pay it and continue anyway.
Both the church and the government is free to do as it pleases. The church can stop providing services, and the government is free to stop giving them contracts. However, with regards to the contracts:
"Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars’ worth this year through his committee."
It's worth remembering that since the church is a non-profit, they derive no financial benefit from such contracts. Of course, the church I'm sure would like to keep those contracts in order to keep doing good in the community.
"“If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,”
I'm guessing there was a reason the Church was chosen for those contracts, like maybe the many volunteers and faith-motivated individuals that ensure they get the most bang for the buck. But, with that said, it's up to the church and the law-makers to come to some sort of an agreement or not.
As for whether church's should continue to have tax-exempt status, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't see this story as evidence that they shouldn't.
Not so. Every contract requires employees to manage and oversee. The contract includes overhead, and that's what a nonprofit lives on. More contracts means more staff, more resources and growth.
'many volunteers and faith-motivated individuals that ensure they get the most bang for the buck.'
everyone who bids on a contract has to disclose what % of the grant funds will get to the intended recipients. Every one is expected these days to also have matching funds. Churches may donate "in kind" by assigning staff not paid by project funds, not charging rent, donating utilities, and donating expertise. Again, the churches have something to offer, but there are many nonprofits, both religious and secular, who compete for those contracts. It isn't like anyone has special technology or techniques here. Baptists, Catholics or Salvation Army can all run a soup kitchen (or find an apartment for a natural disaster victim).
Yes, I see your point that even non-profits have an interest in keeping
government contracts. However, even so there must have been reason that the
government went with the church for the contracts in the first place
(probably because they can do the work that needed to be done for the least
amount of money), so it's not clear that there is some other entity waiting
to take the place of the church and perform the same duties at the same
price if the contract falls apart.
So, this is a dispute between two parties which have a mutual interest in
working together, but both of which also have their own interests to look
out for. I don't see any "blackmail" or any other abuse of power by either
side in that equation. If the two parties can't resolve their differences
than so be it.
I believe you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope, on this one. It's abundantly clear that the state - with its neo- tolerance at all costs no matter what the costs - is blackmailing the millenniums old bedrock ideology of most of the Western world - Christianity - with threats of non-inclusion & intolerance in the state's Utopian world of inclusion & tolerance.
But that's not hypocritical, or anything.
Yet, the Church would be a laughing stock if the mis-guided application of 'love the sinner but hate the sin' were to undermine its core philosophy by allowing whatever aberrant behavior, in vogue from one generation to the next, into its inner sanctum.
Instead of moving farther left into social fascism, with more taxation for the purpose of social engineering, the ideal solution would be to tax everyone less, have the Church to remove its hand from the public trough, and let the individual decide how his charity shall be distributed.
More liberty, Jazz, not less.
.
Well said. I think the clergy loses a certain amount of their stature when they venture very far into matters politic.
And don't forget the CC has had this position just a wee bit longer than you existed on the face of this earth. Just because some would declare this to be a "political" position, hardly changes the fact that millions of others accept this to be a "moral" position, close-minded or otherwise.
By the way, I'm turning in all the liberals here in to the Ebeneezer Baptist Church for suggesting they lose their tax exemption for all the "politiking" they have been indulging in for the past 50 years.
As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church does help tens of thousands of people. So, as a pragmatist, I'm in favor of exempting the Catholic Church from anything that would prevent it from helping tens of thousands of people.
The Catholic Church's homophobia is stupid and--as a practical matter--laughably hypocritical. Stupid. Laughable. Hypocritical. But the people who need their help shouldn't be denied.
And I don't have any high-flown rhetoric that will make me forget about them.
Do you think there would be any kind of disruptive gap in service to the needy?
Great article, as usual..... But I respectfully disagree.
If you want to tax all NONPROFIT institutions, then go ahead. Just be consistent with that and don't simply put the crosshairs on religious institutions.
Should Catholic institutions refuse to minister or help homosexuals in time of need? Absolutely not. Christ preached differently. Should Catholics be forced to accept homosexuality or hire them? Absolutely not. I'm sure Planned Parenthood would turn a anti-abortion person from employment as well. As would the Red Cross refuse to hire a person who enjoys seeing people suffer.
We can't have it both ways here.
Boy Scouts of America is one such tax-exempt group.
You cannot single out Churches. That's my only point.
If you want to yank ALL tax-exemptions, the do so.
Wait a second, Green.....
Didn't you see my statement. I KNOW that all non-profits are not tax-exempt.
I pointed out that not all tax-exempt entities are Churches (Boy Scouts, etc).
You can't remove a tax exempt status from non-profits if they are taxed - that's obvious.
I said, if you remove tax exempt status from Churches, then you must do it for ALL tax-exempt entities that are not Churches. That includes tax-exempt organizations like the Vietnam Memorial Veterans Fund, Boy Scouts of America, Christian Children's Fund, and just about every tax-exempt charity out there. Many of these tax-exempt charities are politically charged or biased.
Does it still sound like a good idea?
I thought that was pretty clear.
Not at all. I'm saying that MANY tax-exempt organizations lobby Congress. Every example I gave you has lobbied Congress.
Lobbying and attempting to influence an election are two different things. My understanding is the restriction imposed on tax-exempt organizations is very specific: they cannot specifically attempt to influence an election, such as by endorsing a candidate. Any individual or organization is allowed to attempt to persuade their elected representatives (ie. lobbying) over any particular issue. Non-profit organizations, including religious ones, do this frequently and they are within their rights to do so.
"Political activities and legislative activities (commonly referred to as lobbying) are two different things and are subject to two different sets of rules."
Here's the rule.
"The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. "
Note how broadly "political activity" is defined.
""Influencing legislation"
A taxable expenditure includes amounts used to attempt to influence legislation:
1. By affecting public opinion, or
2. By communicating with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any other government official or employee who may participate in formulating the legislation.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council or similar governing body, or the public by way of referendum, constitutional amendment, or the like. The word action includes the introduction, enactment, defeat, or repeal of legislation.
I took at look at this IRS factsheet: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=15471...
It does appear that there is some gray area in the sense that if a tax-exempt organizations makes a statement, even if it is completely issue-oriented, regarding an issue that separates the two candidates, and if the statement is close to an election, then it could be considered a violation. But none of that is true in this case.
I'm leery of anti-discrimination employment laws in general, since employment decisions are fundamentally about discriminating.
But that doesn't seem to be quite the issue here. The church's nightmare scenario seems to be having to extend equal spousal benefits to gay partners, on whom they've not necessarily ever set eyes. Meaning someone gay is already on the payroll, and the church would potentially be obliged to take on a new financial burden to support a spouse they disapprove of.
It's unfortunate the government feels the need to micromanage these sorts of issues, but it's also hard to muster much sympathy for the church. "Let us make our petty gestures of disapproval," they growl, "or the poor will get it!"
With that said, American Christians are also civic creatures who have a duty to vote.
If a Christian (who says they believe the same as the congregation does) votes for someone who represents the very opposite of those beliefs, they are violating their principles.
If your rule book summarizes Jesus's teaching as "you must decry your neighbor's sins, and sticking it to the poor is one good way," you must have a different edition than I.
I agree. My "edition" does not say "stick it to the poor", it says help the less fortunate. I do.
I also says I am not to stand idely by and allow sin to be left unchecked.
Timothy 4:1-5
"So with God and Christ as witnesses, I command you to preach God's message. Do it willingly, even if it isn't the popular thing to do. You must correct people and point out their sins."
I hope your "rulebook" has that in it as well.
Then with regard to this one particular sin, we can all take pride in Christians' overachivement.
? ? ? ? ?
The passage certainly doesn't single out homosexuality among the many other sins Christians feel less compelled to confront. Show me the church that will refuse spousal benefits for a wife who's a known gossip, or for a husband who dishonors his parents.
Your argument strikes me as a disingenuous attempt to duck responsibility for your opinions. Oh, I love homosexuals to death, and I wish I could treat them better, but the Bible gives me no choice! I'm a victim!
Please. I know you hold yourself to a higher standard on most other subjects.
We all sin. Some continually search themselves in accordance with the Bible, and others do not. If we do that and correct the sinful conditions we find - we are forgiven, and are told to "depart and sin no more". If we do not, we remain in that sin and rish being lost. A lie is a sin. If you ask for forgiveness with a true heart - you are forgiven. Homosexuality is a sin. If you ask for forgiveness with a true heart - you are forgiven. With both instances, if you return to that state (leave and continue to lie, or leave and continue to live the homosexual lifestyle), you are right back where you started.
I hold that Biblical standard for all sin, J.
This isn't about what Jefferson wants or does not want. This is about what God wants for His people.
Many congregations out there do how THEY feel is right, and worship how THEY feel is right. They even pick and choose the parts of the Bible that fit THEIR lives. They fail to realize that they are being arrogant to think that they know better than God. It's all in there - all anyone has to do is look.
...that is, consistently with yourself. No church that I'm aware of takes the hard line against gossip that the Catholics in this story take against homosexuality. They will probably agree in the abstract that all sins are created equal and so forth, but in practice they don't badger gossips like they do gays. Surely they're not all out of step but you.
I have yet to hear a bishop or pope say that gossip is permitted - or lying, or murder, or any other sinful act. If the Catholic church were to come out and say that any of those we're ok, but homosexuality is wrong - then they'd be hyprocrits. But the Bible does have a problem with same-sex marriage, J. It SPECIFICALLY says man-woman, and specifically condemns homosexuality. You want a Church to ok that through employment or contracts. Well, they just can't do that, nor should they be expected to.
And yes, homosexuality IS the same as gossip (backbiting, it's called in the Bible) and all other sin.
Actions speak louder than words, and in their actions Catholics as well as Protestants say exactly that.
I will show you a Church that follows the Bible - that speaks where it speaks and is silent where it is silent.
They refuse "spousal rights" to those who do not fit the qualifications as laid our in the Bible.
They allow "spousal rights' to those who qualify per the Bible.
They call out all sin, especially from their own members.
It's called the Lord's Church or the Church of Christ.
There IS a requirement that we are not to perpetuate sin or condone it.
If there is a market for health insurance for homosexual couples, then why not start the company yourself? You can serve the needs of homosexuals and become a millionaire. It is perfectly legal for an insurance company to do that right now. Nothing stopping you if you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps George Soros can bankroll it for you. My point..... It can be done now. Homosexuals can make things legally binding through an attorney right now.
As I've said so many times before. This isn't about what homosexuals want or can get legally.
This is about the raising of a sexual fetish to normality. This has been the tactic of the left since, well, forever.
I think I've given you enough chances to defend the point, and you're neither succeeding nor backing off of it. So I'm going to stop badgering you about it.
Should they stop their social work if "they don't get their way"?
Absolutely not!!!!! Social work is not for "them". It's Christ's command to do, regardless.
(And I think that was your main point, which I obviously missed)
They are to help members of the Church first, and then everyone else in the community - which includes homosexuals. But you have to remember one thing. If any of their work is done in such a manner that condones or furthers the homosexual cause (as normal acceptable behavior) then they cannot be expected to do it.
Separation of Church and State doesn't only cover the government touting religion - it also covers the government impeding religion.
Also, it's always good to back to the source, I think Jazz missed this part:
"The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics. "
As for money put in the parish collection plate and given directly to the archdiocese (we have an annual archbishop's appeal to support various missions here in Atlanta), I guess some parishes and dioceses are doing a better job with transparency than others. We receive an annual summary of revenue and expenses from our parish, and the archdiocese posts general information online and will provide more detailed statements upon request. They've also pledged that none of the money donated to the archdiocesan appeal has been or will be used to settle lawsuits.
The line is drawn for direct political activity.....you know, campaigning and electioneering......like registering voters. So, think about this........
The Catholic Church is a c3............so is the ACORN Institute.........when you can explain why you're not agitated over their tax exemption, I'll listen to your argument for pulling it for the CC.
Well, hopefully we'll soon see about that (if the financial records haven't already been laundered before the raid.)
Frankly I find it breathtaking that you don't have a problem with organizations covering up internal crimes from their donors either, but this was on another order of magnitude because even the board of the organization was prevented from knowing about it (which resulted in the perpetrator remaining in employment of the organization for a number of years, and never facing any legal consequences for his actions either.)
I should add that in my initial comment I misstated this as a coverup 'by the organization's board members' when what I meant to write was that the coverup was perpetrated by the executives of the organization who withheld information from the board.
At the same time, I hope that some other entity is prepared to come in and undertake such massive programs, and has no conflict.
It actually has little to do with politics (and leftist hatred of the Religious Right or any moral, anti-radical stance churches may take, as opposed to politically correct behavior and even "liberation theology" and related things like protesting the military or nuclear weapons or harboring illegal aliens by the Religious Left and lefties barely posing as religious as a facade for their political activism).
(I'm surprised the "medical marijuana" advocates haven't tried imitating the Coptics or brought in Indians from the Southwest, and their hallucinogens, and presented themselves as religious organizations, too.)
I resent the Catholic church meddling in politics while enjoying a tax free status for their business.
However
Gays transsexuals, transgender, lesbians issues do not rise to the noble level of legal equality. No
futher legal protections are warranted for them.
.A right to Sexual deviance is not within the Constitution.
LOL, no lefty blogger would ever vote for me, you overestimate my appeal.
And here is the section on legislation:
BTW, a church can do some lobbying if they file a Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible IRC Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation. Do you think any churches have done so? I suppose we could ask the IRS. Is it your contention that churches and other tax exempt organizations should be allowed to lobby?
I think it would be difficult to argue that a "substantial" part of the activities of the Catholic church is lobbying. Sure, maybe they are supposed to fill out a form to do the lobbying that they do. I have no clue if they do or not, and in my opinion that's a pretty minor detail and is a matter for the IRS to resolve.
So I think we've established that non-profits can engage in lobbying without losing their tax exempt status. So on to the question of what they *should* be allowed to do:
"Is it your contention that churches and other tax exempt organizations should be allowed to lobby?"
Yes. An organization should have the right to look out for its own interests, which includes arguing for or against legislation. They should be subject to any other rules that apply to lobbying, but shouldn't be forbidden from doing it.
(As a side note, I want to clarify that I don't feel strongly that religious organizations should have tax-exempt status in the first place. I don't know that they should be put into the same category as other charities. However, if we do give them tax-exempt status, that status shouldn't be conditioned on them keeping their mouths shut with regards to legislation that they feel affects them.)
EDIT: Sorry, I corrected a minor typo above that probably will contribute to the confusion.