Should churches which use their collective political might to deny equal freedoms and rights to all citizens lose their tax-exempt status?

Absolutely. People have to keep pressing this issue. We need to stop handling religious people with kid gloves because they know eveyone does and they use that to their advantage.

I don’t think churches should be tax-exempt in the first place. Why are they, anyway?
I also think that even when taxed, clerics should stay out of politics.

I do. To me, that would be a misuse of their role in the community. Denying equal rights and freedoms to those who may not conform to THEIR way of thinking is a form of judgment and goes against the very principles that they are SUPPOSED to be teaching. Hypocrisy. The church is a place for people to go to see to their spiritual needs….personal opinions and politics should be left outside the doors.

They should definitely have their tax-exempt status taken away. Like I’ve always said there is nothing more morally wrong than to mix religion with politics government policy in particular. To do so is to deprive society of a fair and unbiased governmental system.

You can’t play if you don’t pay.

Churches are tax exempt under 501c(3) – under the provisions of this exemption a church cannot campaign for any political party or lose the tax-exempt status. Lyndon B. Johnson initiated this into law in 1954 (later president Johnson). His motives were not favoring the church, but rather to prevent churches from politicking.

Unlike other tax-exempt organizations under 501c like environmental groups, feminist groups, etc. churches are actually at a disadvantage.

@3forks Then how did the Mormons manage to fund their opposition to gay marriage legislation in CA? Just curious.
It seems to me that it hasn’t stopped them at all though, just given them more money to lobby with.

The mormons or any other 501c group can fund whatever they wish. You are picking an choosing who you wish to see as tax exempt based on your ideology rather a state of fairness. Church’s however cannot broadcast a political recommendation from the pulpit for fear of losing the tax exempt status.

@3forks So I take it that threatening to excommunicate any parishioner who votes for Obama doesn’t count either, eh?
BTW – All tax-exempt groups do this, so don’t make it about my ideology here unless you are more into smoke-and-mirrors than discussing things on merit.

You have to remember that Christian churches are split between Evangelical and Mainline churches – the former conservative and the latter liberal – this is in both theology and in social politics. At the current time the population of Evangelicals outnumber that of the Mainline, but there is not a huge disparity. Congregants of Mainline churches would have a tendency to vote Democrat and Evangelicals would have a tendency to vote Republican.

It is a fallacy that ALL churches are conservative and Republican.

Any church that endeavors to excommunicate anyone for voting for a specific candidate certainly puts that church in danger of losing it’s 501c and that church can be reported to the IRS or to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (au.org) and they will do it for you.

In the case of the excommunication of Patrick Kennedy for his stance on abortion and the threat of excommunication by a Catholic Church, Kennedy has the simple choice of leaving the church. Should he not have a conviction in Catholic doctrine then he ought to leave.

If my reference to an ideology is out of bounds I apologize.

@3forks I just want to be even-handed about it, that’s all.
If the examples I cite seem biased, then remember that they are just for illustration, and often ones that have actually made the news as opposed to the obscure dealings from other groups that never make the headlines. I believe that ALL non-profits should be held to the same standards.

The Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The argument – is this conclusive and all encompassing separation of government and religion or merely the founding authors attempts at eliminating the government’s authority that only one religion and one church would be permitted, as was the case in England when America was a British colony and writing the Declaration of Independence.

If you see it from the latter perspective then the separation of church and state takes on a whole different meaning from the former. While the Constitution has served the country quite well in a period over 200 years, it is laced with ambiguity and the courts have had to step in and make scores of determinations.

You are correct about the standards – Churches under fairness doctrine and straightforward equality, do deserve as much right as any non-profit organization that would endeavor to undermine them or has viewpoints contrary to church teachings.

Most churches would not donate to political causes and participate in pulpit politics. They may voice opposition to a social viewpoint that contradicts doctrine, but not at the tarnishing of any individual political candidate or party. Unlike many 501c organizations that do openly advocate for political candidates and parties, the churches under the religious statutes of 501c are at a distinct disadvantage.

The Mormon issue is a little external of the debate since its origins and teachings do not conform to Judeo-Christian standards and I suspect the questioner’s intent lies with Judeo-Christian churches.

@3forks My view is that the tax-exempt status is an agreement that the government will not interfere with the group, and that should be reciprocated by them not interfering with the government either. Whether the group is religious or not is, in my mind, irrelevant.

However, where does one draw the line between a religious groups and a PAC? Is it possible that a religious group can be a PAC? If the churches really are at a disadvantage compared to more ecumenical PACs are then that speaks more to a need to reform 501c than anything else.

In reality, the question asked here was phrased in a manner that lends itself to denigrating the tax-exempt status of religion organizations.

To denigrate religion is more socially acceptable, but to malign liberal non-profit organizations is considered politically incorrect. Sometimes we need to set the record straight – all organizations need to be treated with “lawful” fairness and if someone disagrees with their objectives or intent then articulate that and not the right of the organization to exist in the same manner as those that the same someone may advocate for. I am not stating this about my continuing discussion with “jerv”, but rather the initial responses from people seemed a little discriminatory towards churches – especially if they had never delved into the 501c(3) IRS regulation in respect of religious organizations.

Most churches or groups of churches will not form a PAC. To politically alienate members of their congregation who do not hold the same position as the PAC is not serving the primary purpose of the church. If a church does form a PAC then they are working outside their intended foundation and objective. Again, it is a misconception that church pews are filled with the religious right.

The idea of reforming the 501c(3) regulations to allow more political freedom for a church is not something any politician would like to handle. The liberal left would be unrelentingly on any such issue and the churches do not seem to be complaining.

As far as government involvement goes 501c(3) organizations are constantly lobbying government to create legislation in their favor. For example, since 1995 there have been more non-profit environmental groups established then all other non-profit group types combined. You can be assured that every one of these groups are petitioning all levels of government to construct laws in their favor.

To denigrate religion is more socially acceptable, but to malign liberal non-profit organizations is considered politically incorrect.
It seems to me that to malign Conservative non-profit organizations is considered heresy, but I beg to differ over the social acceptability of denigrating religion since many would argue that denigrating religion (at least the Judeo-Christian ones) is considered treason by some.
However, to discuss this point further would be a digression, and possibly an ugly one so let us set it aside.

Sometimes we need to set the record straight – all organizations need to be treated with “lawful” fairness…
I am for a level playing field. Unfortunately dollars seem to speak louder than words.

Again, it is a misconception that church pews are filled with the religious right.
Most of the devout people I know (of many faiths) are rather moderate. Then again, those people don’t really try influencing government any more than the average citizen. I vote, I occasionally sign a petition, but you don’t see me buying any lobbyists.

As far as government involvement goes 501c(3) organizations are constantly lobbying government to create legislation in their favor.
Yep. All of them, from every side.

@ 3forks: Sorry, but this question was NOT phrased with intent to denigrate the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. I merely suggested that any church or organized religion that interferes or presses their own religious agenda in politics, should lose their tax exempt status. I don’t give two hoots if they want to believe in Yahweh, Zeus, Buddha or any of the thousands of gods, for that matter. I do, however, give a hoot when their agendas spill over into the House or Senate. Ironically, Lyndon Johnson’s effort may have been to keep the churches from politicking. In reality, it hasn’t stopped the churches from obtaining countless earmarks and funding their own hand-picked and well-tutored candidates and it hasn’t curbed their intense lobbying of Senators and Congressmen. Why should the American people continue to shoulder the cost of allowing not just organized religion, but any not-for-profit organization, the ability to intercede in Washington politics and also allow their member’s individual votes to count separately? Taxes gained from these organizations could easily make a large dent in the national deficit and could allow enough solvency to partially or completely fund universal healthcare.

@Rufus_T_Firefly I thought so, but the instant you mention religion, you open a whole case of canned worms.

Rufus – Your question was framed in a manner that would induce an air of negativity towards churches. Your anecdote to the question, “organized religion regularly oversteps the boundaries provided by their not-for-profit, tax-exempt status” isn’t exactly initiating the question without a predisposed judgment.

Perhaps your initial question should have been a part of your latest response, “Why should the American people continue to shoulder the cost of allowing not just organized religion, but any not-for-profit organization. . . etc.”

About the only funding religious organizations ever receive from Government is not to cultivate religion, but to feed the destitute or care for the needy. This is mandated by the Supreme court with the provision that, “they do not proselytize or engage in sectarian instruction; serve all persons without regard to religion; follow applicable federal anti-discrimination laws; and use public monies only to serve grant-specified secular purposes.”

If you compare federal funding of religious initiatives to that of the environmental movement there is a significant discrepancy. Yet while the latest PEW research indicates that only 36% of Americans believe in anthropogenic global warming, the government funds the movement with billions of dollars and allows for its faithful to be 501c non-profit. The reverence of Gaia (Mother Earth) can certainly be construed as a religion.

The fact here is that you desire non-profit organizations to contribute to taxation to diminish a national debt and assist in funding healthcare – whereas the indiscriminate and irresponsible spending of congress, on both sides of the aisle, would be a much better rallying position. Also, it is a genuine corruption of government when the people’s representatives allow themselves to be influenced by the contributions of any non-profit or for profit organization. That’s really where the buck ought to stop. The guilt of the disingenuous politician cannot be excused by simply accusing the source of the bribes.

Lyndon Johnson’s motives for introducing 501c into religion was in fact induced by the opposition he received from some churches in his congressional district during his election bids. You can imagine the publicized aggression of a non-profit progressive group against a conservative candidate and while they can create PACs the churches, as mandated, cannot.

Had you addressed the question employing all non-profit organizations without exclusivity of religion the results and commentary may be more pervasive and certainly more generic.

3fprks, that still does not excuse the reasons why not-for-profit institutions and churches continue to press their organized agendas in American politics and yet retain their tax-exempt status and their individual member’s right to vote. Regardless of how I could have phrased my question, the fact remains, churches and many not-for-profits DO get involved in the process. The fact that I believe these organizations should pay-to-play, so to speak, is simple, the rest of us are required to do so, so why exclude them from this requirement when they frequently press their own code of ethics onto the rest of us through constant lobbying and involvement in national politics? But, that, along with our last president’s faith-based-initiatives are just a couple of the many reasons for my question. That Congress spends like a drunken sailor on shore leave is has little to do with their continued illicit involvement in the process. Despite the veracity of portions of your statement, the money saved by these tax-exemptions CAN be considered funding and should be rescinded when they openly break the rules.