Hmmm.
I actually don’t know what I think. Normally I’m quite determined about separation of church and state–which is primarily intended to keep the state out of church business, not vice-versa. Still, it is to a certain extent a two-way street.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
{ 19 comments }
A two-way street, indeed. If churches are going to be tax exempt, they have to be nonpartisan. They can support issues, but not candidates or parties. If they cross that line, nail them.
See, that seems rather strange to me; if a church believes, say, that abortion is murder, are they not supposed to say so? What if they believe in gay rights? And, if so, are they not allowed to note where the candidates stand on such issues?
Stands on the issues, fine. Obvious implications about the candidates, unavoidable. Endorsing a candidate or party by name, no.
Or if conscience is that important to them, voluntarily surrender their property taxes to the proper jurisdictions, and speak about the candidates as much as they like. But once they cross that line, it’s crossed, and they’re taxed from then on.
To let them have a special tax exemption that the common business or citizen does not share has to be balanced with a special obligation not to take sides in the political process.
Yeah. I’m just not sure how I really feel about that.
I think a church/pastor can speak out on issues and can even inform as to where a particular candidate stands on those issues. The only thing that church cannot do is tell people for whom to vote.
I have never attended a Unitarian service that didn’t take sides in the political process. These preachers make Howard Dean look nonpartisan.
I can’t think of a single religious institution that doesn’t wear its political bias out in the open for everyone to see.
If videos of various preachers from all religions are any indication, their tax-exempt status should have all been taken away years ago.
The government could use the money right now.
This isn’t happening already?
I’ve seen plenty of democrat politicians speaking at black churches.
I consider that at least an implied endorsement.
Even though their politics are probably in conflict with my own, I’m glad they’re challenging that old law; it’s probably unconstitutional. I personally think churches should be able to say and do anything private individuals can say and do. The First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free practice of religion are not an either-or proposition.
Churches have tax-exempt status in part to prevent the government from using taxation as a weapon against unpopular or inconvenient religious viewpoints. The founders were very familiar with governments that officially favored one set of religious beliefs over another and they knew the problems that it would inevitably cause if it weren’t prohibited in the Constitution.
And there’s no obligation for the church to behave in any particular way in order to "deserve" tax exemption. Freedom to practice your religion without fear of government reprisal is an inherent human right, not something that the government grants you so long as you only preach about pre-approved topics.
bcostin’s last blog post..He’ll be your friend forever! Whenever!
bcostin,
then what’s to prevent every citizen from declaring themselves a church-of-one and therefore tax-exempt?
Not sure I even understand the question, Zach. If she thinks churches should lose their tax-exempt status, then, your question would not even apply unless I’m misreading it.
Your question would be, what is it that stops individuals from declaring themselves a church-of-one RIGHT NOW, since churches are already tax exempt. And the answer is, the government has set up rules that it’s used for decades to determine what is and is not a legitimate church and/or religion. If it bothers you that they’re in the business of doing that, well, it should have been bothering you for some time now since they’ve been doing it for generations, and have put some people in jail for trying to dodge taxes by calling themselves churches.
"And the answer is, the government has set up rules that it’s used for decades to determine what is and is not a legitimate church and/or religion."
And one of those rules is: must be nonpartisan.
I can’t think of a single religious institution that doesn’t wear its political bias out in the open for everyone to see.
I agree with that and would add that I have also never been to a church where a particular candidate was named as someone who should receive the congregation’s votes. I have hear preachers name names insofar as which candidates support particular issues, but no one has ever said "vote for candidate ‘Bob’".
Hah, a thought: can we consider this an early version of McCain-Fiengold?Â
Â
To be tax-exempt, follow the rules. The State does not tax churches as a favor to the churches, not because of the Establishment of Religion business, albeit I can certainly see the slippery slope via preferential taxing. But in my State, there is indirect preference. The clergy of only six religions are recognised as being eligible to obtain a license to perform State-recognized religious marriages: others must have a marriage certificate signed by a State judge (or, left over from a long time back, the Sheriff of one far-South county -Â the whole State is only sixty miles long…).
 ——-
At the church my family attends, no direct politics is mentioned from the pulpit albeit some lessons may be taken as applying if one is so inclined - but the minister  is free to speak to congregants individually or in groups: sort of equivalent to the Pope of the RC church not being "infallible" except in very constrained circumstances.Â
Â
In other words, he can talk politics all he wants – but if he does so, naming names/parties/whatever from the pulpit, he knows about eighty percent of the members would inform him of the nearest egress even if they agreed with him.Â
Â
But then, in our church the members can kick a pastor to the curb (or hire one)Â without reference to the organisation of which it is a part.
It’s interesting that the 1st Amendment applies everywhere else except where a preacher addresses his congregation.
But, then, we’re not talking about all churches. We’re talking about conservative churches. Let’s see a liberal Christian church get its tax exempt status threatened for supporting a pro-homosexuality candidate.
"It’s interesting that the 1st Amendment applies everywhere else except where a preacher addresses his congregation."
It’s interesting that property taxes apply everywhere else except where a preacher addresses his congregation.
And do you really want to contend that that’s the only situation where the 1st Amendment is limited?
"But, then, we’re not talking about all churches. We’re talking about conservative churches."
Read the article. You’re wrong.
I believe that the main reason that churches are exempt from taxes is that the majority of people believe the churches are an expecially positive benefit to society, and not taxing them helps to create that social good. It is the same reason that other non-profit organizations are not taxed.Â
I also think that one danger of having the ‘no naming of candidates rule’ is that it could be selectively enforced, for political purposes. I don’t think that has happened too much, but it is a danger and perhaps removing this rule would be benficial on that regard. I also don’t see a whole lot of down side (from the government/freedom perspective) in letting a preacher say that congregants should vote for a particular candidate, but that taking advocacy outside the church (newpaper adds, tv etc.) is a different thing.Â
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Kindle
It’s interesting that property taxes apply everywhere else except where a preacher addresses his congregation.
That’s not true. There are many non-profits who benefit from tax exemptions. It’s not just Churches.
TexasAg03,
It’s exactly as true as Kevin’s untrue statement. That was my point: I was demonstrating his wrongness with wrongness. Those tax exempt non-profits are required to be non-partisan, just like the churches, so Kevin’s "the church is getting singled out" stance is flat wrong.
Colleges and universities are also tax exempt. And many of them unabashedly promote left wing politics.
Some balance is required here also.
Comments on this entry are closed.