News: Church politics bill fails by wide margin

It's not regulating the free excercise thereof.

It's making sure that a religious corporation continues to operate as a religious corporation, and not as a political corporation. If a church wants to operate as a poitical corporation in regards to tax exempt status, it needs to incorporate as a political charity instead of a religious charity.

Churches are free to excercise as they wish. However, if they want to be tax exempt, they must operate under certain guidelines.

I don't see what the big deal is.

 

The Jones bill was designed to annul a 48-year-old law that prohibits all tax-exempt groups - including churches - from participating in political activity under the threat of loss of tax-exempt status. However, it is important to note that only one church in the history of our nation has ever lost its tax-exempt status because of political wrongdoings. And in that case - wherein a pastor irresponsibly purchased billboards and newspaper ads telling people not to vote for Bill Clinton - the loss of tax-exempt status lasted for only an hour before being returned.

Norm: Translation of Falwellian ethic -- so what if you break the law and get caught; first, it is unlikely that you will get caught and, second, in the event that you do get caught, remember it is for a good cause and the consequences are of little concern.

 

Amen, Bob! May God give us more preachers like we usta have! Yes, these preachers were pastors of CHURCHES and not some state created religious organization ! I've also heard that the early American pastors were referred to as the 'Black Brigade' and that they cried aloud and spared not as according to Isaiah 58:1. Also, from what I read, we owe alot of thanks those pastors who preached FREEDOM FROM THEIR PULPITS ...because they are the ones who stirred up the hearts of the average American to stand up for their God-given rights and resist tyranny (England)!

That's right...CHURCHES are free to exercise their God-given rights and preach against the wickedness of this day! Whereas, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS must do meekly as they are told by their creator...the state.

We cannot serve two masters...we are either a CHURCH instituted by God, our master...OR, we are either a religious organization (operating like a church) that is created by the state, in which the state is the master.

(John, from what I read in pub. 557, CHURCHES do not have to file with the state in order to be tax exempt...isn't that right?)

 

John, from what I read in pub. 557, CHURCHES do not have to file with the state in order to be tax exempt...isn't that right?

My understanding is that any organization must file as a not-for-profit status with the IRS (federal, not state) in order to be exempt from income tax.

 

According to this paragraph on page 23 of pub 557, it sounds like a church does NOT have to file with the government in order to be tax exempt. Religious organizations, yes...but, churches, no.

 

You're correct. My bad.

Actually, we're both right. A church (used by the IRS to define a physical a house of worship) is not required to file for tax exempt status, so long as they meet the requirements of Section 501(c)(3).

Religious organizations, however, ARE required to file for tax exempt status. In other words, Liberty Baptist Church is automatically exempt, but the "Old Time Gospel Hour" is not, and needs to file for exempt status.

IRC Section 501(c)(3) describes charitable organizations (including churches and religious organizations), which qualify for exemption from Federal income tax and generally are eligible to receive tax-deductible
contributions. This section provides that:
* An organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other charitable
purposes,
* Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
* No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
* The organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
* No part of the organization’s purposes or activities may be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

[ October 07, 2002, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I am disappointed in how this muzzling of churches began, and that it continues today. I am sorry that the congress does not have the backbone to stand up for the 1st Amendment.

 

It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. One's tax exempt status is not a constitutional right. It's a privilege granted to whether or not exempting a groups from paying income tax is in the public interest.

This is simply a matter of saying that an organization whose primary purpose is political lobbying is not a church, but a political organization.

 

Under our Constitution, the government does not have the right to demand that we trade our rights in order to receive its privileges.

This is a fundamental flaw of our tax system. It directly conflicts with personal rights and liberty. It probably explains why the original Constitution forbade direct taxation as well. We are living the realization of the fears of those who opposed the income tax in the early 20th century.

 

The issue was not taxation, but taxation without representation.

I'll say it again. Churches are tax exempt, and the IRS recognizes that. However, the IRS also doesn't see organizations whose primary function is political as a churh, but as a political organization. In other words, if you want the protections offerred to the church, you must act like a church.

That being said, a church that feels the need to be primarily political can retain its tax exempt status by filing for such status as a chraitable political organization.

 

That was not the issue of Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. This clause was consistently ruled as a prohibition of the income tax. The 16th amendment was proposed to overturn this ruling.

As I understand it, part of the argument against the amendment was that it would enable the government to control people and effectively deny their rights, hmmmmm.

Interestingly, it seems that the 16th amendment was "declared" ratified by a court (I think in 1913?) rather than gaining the necessary support from the state legislatures. When instituted, less than 5% of Americans paid any income taxes. Liberals used the same rhetoric back then... they were only going to tax the "wealthiest" people.

Also, we would recognize what they were paying as "capital gains" rather than the modern conception of "income" tax. Wages were not recognized as "income" until many years later.

[ October 09, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

The short answer is that the tax code we have today gives government an ability to control and influence behaviour that is completely contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

Stipulated. Personally, I'm in favor of use tax (sales tax, whatever you want to call it) only. Of course, I'm also in favor of getting government out of most of the businesses it has its hands in, thereby reducing the amount of money needed for the government to run those affairs.

However, in the current situation, in which we have an income tax and a capital gains tax and myriad other taxes, AND we have circumstances by which some groups can be exempted from paying most of those taxes, why are churches considered special? If anyone is opposed to limiting political speech for tax exempt groups, would you propose that all organizations get that restriction lifted?

My biggest question throught has been "why do we have tax exemption at all for certain groups?" That's what makes little sense to me.

Oh, regarding the earlier issue of whether or not a church must incorporate to receive tax benefits, while it's true that a church does not have to incorporate as a 501(c)(3), in order to receive the tax benefits, they must qualify to be a 501(c)(3). Basically, they have to look like one, even if they haven't filed the papers - but only if they claim tax exemption.

 

[Taxation without representation] was not the issue of Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. This clause was consistently ruled as a prohibition of the income tax. The 16th amendment was proposed to overturn this ruling.

This point is moot, since Amendment 16 of the Constitution modified Article I, section 9, of the Constitution to read as follows:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This amendment was passed by Congress July 2, 1909. It was ratified February 3, 1913 by 38 states (36 were required). Anti-tax advocates have attempted numerous lawsuits arguing that some of the states' ratifications were invalid or improper, but in every case, the courts have upheld the 38 ratifications as constitutionally satisfactory.

[ October 09, 2002, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]