Jump to content

The Unfair Tax Exemption For Politically Active Churches Must End


skews13
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/27/h.html

 

 

 

tax-churches-485x382.jpg

 

 

 

 

Throughout American history this country has alienated, disenfranchised, and legally discriminated against many groups of people despite what scholars and historians have called an “immortal declaration,” “perhaps (the) single phrase,” or the “theory of prediction with the greatest continuing importance” of the Revolutionary period. It is likely that when Thomas Jefferson penned “all men are created equal” it was his hope that the young nation would evolve into a country where every citizen was equal, but his hope has never fully been realized.

 

Over several generations, one group or another had to fight tooth and nail to achieve equal rights in the land where “all men are created equal,” and a new group found the courage to join women, gays, minorities, and the poor in demanding equality and that the U.S. government hold everyone to the same standards and be given the same rights. If the concept of equality is predicated on the idea that everyone is given the same rights, when the federal government gives preferential treatment to a certain group the rest of the population does not have, then the rest of the population is being discriminated against and are not equal.

 

In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson granted a “favor” to churches with the “Johnson Amendment” giving religious organizations tax-exempt 501©(3) status churches decry as unfair because of the proviso they were “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.” Religious groups say Johnson giving them taxpayer-funded welfare was devastating and an attempt to “eliminate the significant influence the church always had on shaping public policy,” but American Atheists and other secular groups say “We find it (tax-exempt status) discriminatory, so we’re suing. The way that this is set up, we all pay for it. We’re all supporting churches for what they do.”

 

The president of the American Atheists, David Silverman, elucidated precisely what is supposed to be the basic premise of the U.S. Constitution; “This is about the U.S. government holding everyone to the same standard and giving the same rights to all. No exceptions. We are seeing religions getting preferential treatment by our government, a government that is supposed to serve us and respect us all as equals, and that’s wrong. It’s not what this country is about and it’s unpatriotic.” It is also undemocratic, unconstitutional, and costs American taxpayers more than $82.5 billion annually to “support false doctrines.”

 

One critic of the decades-old practice said that even if the government gave tens-of-billions to what conservatives claim is the religion America is founded on (Christianity), it is still wrong because giving welfare to churches does not “enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy.” The lawsuit comes on the heels of a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court Judge who declared it “unconstitutional” to allow “a minister of the gospel” to avoid paying income tax on a specific portion of their compensation.

 

The judge ruled that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.” Judge Barbara B. Crabb said there was nothing to “identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.”

 

She continued that “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.” The aspect of the 501©(3) tax-exempt designation the ruling addressed is allowing preachers to use their untaxed income to purchase a home, and then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes in what clergy affectionately call “double dipping.”

 

As a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation accurately opined “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.” However, the “preacher preference” is a pittance ($2.3 billion from 2002-2007) compared to the tens-of-billions churches bilk the taxpayers out of every year, and it is high time the practice comes to an abrupt end, and with extreme prejudice.

 

The District Court ruling and lawsuit demanding equal treatment under the law are first steps to bring equal rights to all Americans. Churches say they provide a valuable spiritual service to the community, but their “soul-saving” is irrelevant; especially considering that the millions of Americans who do provide tangible goods and services to the community have to pay their fair share of taxes that are funneled directly to churches by way of tax-exemption on earnings as well as the obscene practice of not paying property taxes on their substantial land holdings and buildings while claiming “non-profit” status. Churches, especially Christian churches, are irate about their “tax-exempt” welfare status they claim “shackles” them from speaking out, funding, or organizing opposition to other Americans’ rights the government declares “legal, even if it is immoral (contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality).”

 

There is a simple solution that will satisfy the Christian churches and the secular groups suing for equality, and it is simply stripping the tax-exempt status from all churches. With the nation, and communities, struggling to fund social programs, infrastructure improvements, create jobs, and reduce the dreaded deficit, the $82.5 billion annually would be substantial revenue. It would also end the unconstitutional practice of forcing American taxpayers to hand over their hard-earned tax dollars to churches rabid to restrict their equal rights under the Constitution. The atheist and secular groups’ lawsuit, coupled with the District Court ruling is not about religion, it is about fairness under the law, democracy, and adhering to the U.S. Constitution Christians claim was handed down directly from god.

 

There is no rational excuse or reason to continue forcing American taxpayers to subsidize any religion, but especially the Christian religion and its advocacy groups that are taking money from the Koch brothers to restrict women’s equal rights and actively campaigning to discriminate against gays. Christian churches already wield inordinate power and influence over the American people, even other Christians, and it is in great part because the government gives taxpayer money in the form of welfare for their despicably undemocratic, unconstitutional, and immoral practice of forcing their asinine bible mythos on the population.

 

Churches can be disabused of their complaint they cannot force their religion down Americans’ throats, and atheists and secularists can finally achieve the constitutionally-guaranteed equality they deserve if they prevail in their lawsuit and put a stop to the ridiculous practice of giving churches what no other American is afforded; tax-exempt status based on whatever belief they adhere to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political spirit character matters is a religion, not genetic continuation passing through the eternity of now, but the play on voabulary arts framing a state of mind.


When every single American has an INCOME tax burden of some amount and we stop giving back more than some pay in then we can discuss this type of tax reform.

Everyone pays something.

When ancestry teaches its ancestors to become society's child, what else can be given away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for tough love.

Love like time is a hypothetical measurement, nothing tough about denying what real remains in plain sight when every body of ancestry does it, one way or another within symbolism is more important than substance and one better mind ideologues that don't care if you exist or not, because they will do anything to make sure your voice doesn't matter when understanding physical absolutes societal evolution spent 400 generations educating ancestry to deny exists in plain sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fine.

 

Then.

 

Lettuce start with this azzhole...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqrXVNfYUI

 

But I'm sure you meant to say "The Unfair Tax Exemption For Politically Active Conservative Churches Must End."

Hey teach, I've got no argument for that. I want his tax exempt status removed as well, and you can put him at the top of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Million dollar churches should be paying the same taxes as million dollar businesses.

Yep, the only line I would draw is the charitable work, and donations the churches actually give to the poor, which should be tax deductible. Any properties, salaries, or other assets, including personal assets of the officers and pastors of the churches should be taxed equally though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fine.

 

Then.

 

Lettuce start with this azzhole...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqrXVNfYUI

 

But I'm sure you meant to say "The Unfair Tax Exemption For Politically Active Conservative Churches Must End."

 

Kindly show one point Wright makes that's not true in that clip. He said God should damn America ".. as long as she acts as if she were God and tries to act supreme." The Bible says "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me." This is a materialistic nation that says it is Christian but in no way acts it. If you present Jesus' ideas to hard conservatives, just the ideas, and you don't preface it with "Jesus said…." they respond with "That's COMMUNIST!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America'? No. No. No. Not 'God Bless America,' 'God damn America.' God damn America for killing innocent people.

 

Look: Right-wing evangelicals say that this country does in fact deserve to be damned -- though they say "deserves to have God's protection removed" as a nice way of putting it -- because of homosexual marriage, taking God out of the schools, and other similarly ludicrous things. But when it comes to an entire political party wanting to spend billions not on helping anyone but to build more prisons, weapons systems, giving further tax breaks to people who have so much that they'll never even notice them -- and which hurts those who already have nothing -- those Right wing evangelicals turn a blind eye. Well, Jesus was concerned with the poor, not the wealthy. He said that being wealthy puts a very big roadblock indeed in front of those who would gain salvation. There are real Christians here, ones who follow Christ. They are generally not wealthy, for the express reason that gaining wealth has no place on the agenda of a follower of Christ. I'm astounded at the unbelievably idiotic "prosperity gospel" that some right-wing pastors preach. They say God wants you to be wealthy. The Bible says the opposite.

These people get mad if you don't agree that this is a "Christian nation."

 

Well, sistas and bruthas, Christian it ain't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does separation of church and state have to do with paying an income tax?

Maybe the reason this country was founded in the first place. No taxation without representation. You tax the church and the church can be part of the govt. The church would become the 4th branch of govt in no time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the reason this country was founded in the first place. No taxation without representation. You tax the church and the church can be part of the govt. The church would become the 4th branch of govt in no time.

I don't think that is a point they have considered. Politics from the pulpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left would open a giant can of worms that would affect the left drastically. Tax churches and you can no longer restrict them from political activity. Politics from the pulpit is nothing compared to the amount of money that they can then pour into PACS, political candidates, commercials, etc.

 

So then the next move the left would take is similar to how they want to treat corporations in the election context. Restrict the money they can use, etc.

 

But the left doesn't think things thru. I say go ahead and tax churches. But remember, churches would then be no longer restricted from political activity. Ya think they hate the religious right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/27/h.html

 

 

 

tax-churches-485x382.jpg

 

 

 

 

Throughout American history this country has alienated, disenfranchised, and legally discriminated against many groups of people despite what scholars and historians have called an “immortal declaration,” “perhaps (the) single phrase,” or the “theory of prediction with the greatest continuing importance” of the Revolutionary period. It is likely that when Thomas Jefferson penned “all men are created equal” it was his hope that the young nation would evolve into a country where every citizen was equal, but his hope has never fully been realized.

 

Over several generations, one group or another had to fight tooth and nail to achieve equal rights in the land where “all men are created equal,” and a new group found the courage to join women, gays, minorities, and the poor in demanding equality and that the U.S. government hold everyone to the same standards and be given the same rights. If the concept of equality is predicated on the idea that everyone is given the same rights, when the federal government gives preferential treatment to a certain group the rest of the population does not have, then the rest of the population is being discriminated against and are not equal.

 

In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson granted a “favor” to churches with the “Johnson Amendment” giving religious organizations tax-exempt 501©(3) status churches decry as unfair because of the proviso they were “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.” Religious groups say Johnson giving them taxpayer-funded welfare was devastating and an attempt to “eliminate the significant influence the church always had on shaping public policy,” but American Atheists and other secular groups say “We find it (tax-exempt status) discriminatory, so we’re suing. The way that this is set up, we all pay for it. We’re all supporting churches for what they do.”

 

The president of the American Atheists, David Silverman, elucidated precisely what is supposed to be the basic premise of the U.S. Constitution; “This is about the U.S. government holding everyone to the same standard and giving the same rights to all. No exceptions. We are seeing religions getting preferential treatment by our government, a government that is supposed to serve us and respect us all as equals, and that’s wrong. It’s not what this country is about and it’s unpatriotic.” It is also undemocratic, unconstitutional, and costs American taxpayers more than $82.5 billion annually to “support false doctrines.”

 

One critic of the decades-old practice said that even if the government gave tens-of-billions to what conservatives claim is the religion America is founded on (Christianity), it is still wrong because giving welfare to churches does not “enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy.” The lawsuit comes on the heels of a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court Judge who declared it “unconstitutional” to allow “a minister of the gospel” to avoid paying income tax on a specific portion of their compensation.

 

The judge ruled that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.” Judge Barbara B. Crabb said there was nothing to “identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.”

 

She continued that “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.” The aspect of the 501©(3) tax-exempt designation the ruling addressed is allowing preachers to use their untaxed income to purchase a home, and then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes in what clergy affectionately call “double dipping.”

 

As a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation accurately opined “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.” However, the “preacher preference” is a pittance ($2.3 billion from 2002-2007) compared to the tens-of-billions churches bilk the taxpayers out of every year, and it is high time the practice comes to an abrupt end, and with extreme prejudice.

 

The District Court ruling and lawsuit demanding equal treatment under the law are first steps to bring equal rights to all Americans. Churches say they provide a valuable spiritual service to the community, but their “soul-saving” is irrelevant; especially considering that the millions of Americans who do provide tangible goods and services to the community have to pay their fair share of taxes that are funneled directly to churches by way of tax-exemption on earnings as well as the obscene practice of not paying property taxes on their substantial land holdings and buildings while claiming “non-profit” status. Churches, especially Christian churches, are irate about their “tax-exempt” welfare status they claim “shackles” them from speaking out, funding, or organizing opposition to other Americans’ rights the government declares “legal, even if it is immoral (contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality).”

 

There is a simple solution that will satisfy the Christian churches and the secular groups suing for equality, and it is simply stripping the tax-exempt status from all churches. With the nation, and communities, struggling to fund social programs, infrastructure improvements, create jobs, and reduce the dreaded deficit, the $82.5 billion annually would be substantial revenue. It would also end the unconstitutional practice of forcing American taxpayers to hand over their hard-earned tax dollars to churches rabid to restrict their equal rights under the Constitution. The atheist and secular groups’ lawsuit, coupled with the District Court ruling is not about religion, it is about fairness under the law, democracy, and adhering to the U.S. Constitution Christians claim was handed down directly from god.

 

There is no rational excuse or reason to continue forcing American taxpayers to subsidize any religion, but especially the Christian religion and its advocacy groups that are taking money from the Koch brothers to restrict women’s equal rights and actively campaigning to discriminate against gays. Christian churches already wield inordinate power and influence over the American people, even other Christians, and it is in great part because the government gives taxpayer money in the form of welfare for their despicably undemocratic, unconstitutional, and immoral practice of forcing their asinine bible mythos on the population.

 

Churches can be disabused of their complaint they cannot force their religion down Americans’ throats, and atheists and secularists can finally achieve the constitutionally-guaranteed equality they deserve if they prevail in their lawsuit and put a stop to the ridiculous practice of giving churches what no other American is afforded; tax-exempt status based on whatever belief they adhere to.

IMO NO church should be tax exempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/27/h.html

 

 

 

tax-churches-485x382.jpg

 

 

 

 

Throughout American history this country has alienated, disenfranchised, and legally discriminated against many groups of people despite what scholars and historians have called an “immortal declaration,” “perhaps (the) single phrase,” or the “theory of prediction with the greatest continuing importance” of the Revolutionary period. It is likely that when Thomas Jefferson penned “all men are created equal” it was his hope that the young nation would evolve into a country where every citizen was equal, but his hope has never fully been realized.

 

Over several generations, one group or another had to fight tooth and nail to achieve equal rights in the land where “all men are created equal,” and a new group found the courage to join women, gays, minorities, and the poor in demanding equality and that the U.S. government hold everyone to the same standards and be given the same rights. If the concept of equality is predicated on the idea that everyone is given the same rights, when the federal government gives preferential treatment to a certain group the rest of the population does not have, then the rest of the population is being discriminated against and are not equal.

 

In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson granted a “favor” to churches with the “Johnson Amendment” giving religious organizations tax-exempt 501©(3) status churches decry as unfair because of the proviso they were “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.” Religious groups say Johnson giving them taxpayer-funded welfare was devastating and an attempt to “eliminate the significant influence the church always had on shaping public policy,” but American Atheists and other secular groups say “We find it (tax-exempt status) discriminatory, so we’re suing. The way that this is set up, we all pay for it. We’re all supporting churches for what they do.”

 

The president of the American Atheists, David Silverman, elucidated precisely what is supposed to be the basic premise of the U.S. Constitution; “This is about the U.S. government holding everyone to the same standard and giving the same rights to all. No exceptions. We are seeing religions getting preferential treatment by our government, a government that is supposed to serve us and respect us all as equals, and that’s wrong. It’s not what this country is about and it’s unpatriotic.” It is also undemocratic, unconstitutional, and costs American taxpayers more than $82.5 billion annually to “support false doctrines.”

 

One critic of the decades-old practice said that even if the government gave tens-of-billions to what conservatives claim is the religion America is founded on (Christianity), it is still wrong because giving welfare to churches does not “enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy.” The lawsuit comes on the heels of a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court Judge who declared it “unconstitutional” to allow “a minister of the gospel” to avoid paying income tax on a specific portion of their compensation.

 

The judge ruled that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.” Judge Barbara B. Crabb said there was nothing to “identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.”

 

She continued that “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.” The aspect of the 501©(3) tax-exempt designation the ruling addressed is allowing preachers to use their untaxed income to purchase a home, and then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes in what clergy affectionately call “double dipping.”

 

As a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation accurately opined “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.” However, the “preacher preference” is a pittance ($2.3 billion from 2002-2007) compared to the tens-of-billions churches bilk the taxpayers out of every year, and it is high time the practice comes to an abrupt end, and with extreme prejudice.

 

The District Court ruling and lawsuit demanding equal treatment under the law are first steps to bring equal rights to all Americans. Churches say they provide a valuable spiritual service to the community, but their “soul-saving” is irrelevant; especially considering that the millions of Americans who do provide tangible goods and services to the community have to pay their fair share of taxes that are funneled directly to churches by way of tax-exemption on earnings as well as the obscene practice of not paying property taxes on their substantial land holdings and buildings while claiming “non-profit” status. Churches, especially Christian churches, are irate about their “tax-exempt” welfare status they claim “shackles” them from speaking out, funding, or organizing opposition to other Americans’ rights the government declares “legal, even if it is immoral (contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality).”

 

There is a simple solution that will satisfy the Christian churches and the secular groups suing for equality, and it is simply stripping the tax-exempt status from all churches. With the nation, and communities, struggling to fund social programs, infrastructure improvements, create jobs, and reduce the dreaded deficit, the $82.5 billion annually would be substantial revenue. It would also end the unconstitutional practice of forcing American taxpayers to hand over their hard-earned tax dollars to churches rabid to restrict their equal rights under the Constitution. The atheist and secular groups’ lawsuit, coupled with the District Court ruling is not about religion, it is about fairness under the law, democracy, and adhering to the U.S. Constitution Christians claim was handed down directly from god.

 

There is no rational excuse or reason to continue forcing American taxpayers to subsidize any religion, but especially the Christian religion and its advocacy groups that are taking money from the Koch brothers to restrict women’s equal rights and actively campaigning to discriminate against gays. Christian churches already wield inordinate power and influence over the American people, even other Christians, and it is in great part because the government gives taxpayer money in the form of welfare for their despicably undemocratic, unconstitutional, and immoral practice of forcing their asinine bible mythos on the population.

 

Churches can be disabused of their complaint they cannot force their religion down Americans’ throats, and atheists and secularists can finally achieve the constitutionally-guaranteed equality they deserve if they prevail in their lawsuit and put a stop to the ridiculous practice of giving churches what no other American is afforded; tax-exempt status based on whatever belief they adhere to.

 

"Allowances" are not taxable, and this is purely another assault upon the middle class by the ultra wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left would open a giant can of worms that would affect the left drastically. Tax churches and you can no longer restrict them from political activity. Politics from the pulpit is nothing compared to the amount of money that they can then pour into PACS, political candidates, commercials, etc.

 

So then the next move the left would take is similar to how they want to treat corporations in the election context. Restrict the money they can use, etc.

 

But the left doesn't think things thru. I say go ahead and tax churches. But remember, churches would then be no longer restricted from political activity. Ya think they hate the religious right now?

 

I don't really have a problem with churches being politically active. I just have a problem with them being politically active and tax exempt at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a problem with churches being politically active. I just have a problem with them being politically active and tax exempt at the same time.

Contrary to popular progressive believe church organizations in general are not politically active. The problem is NOT as widespread as the progs want us to believe. If it were the current administration would be having the IRS investigating all over the country. Are there a few that push the limits and cross the line? Certainly, and those should pay the price.

 

I would also urge the knee jerk reactors to peruse this PDF from the IRS. It outlines the differences between "churches", which is used I general to describe everything from a mosque to a synagogue to a church. It explains the differences between a what they define as a "church" and a religious organization.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

CBN is a billion dollar corporation .. they should absolutely pay taxes.

They probably do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we were a kunt hair away from saying president romney. A prominent Mormon.

No they don't .. a lot of for profit churches sit on thier asses and collect tax free loot.

I suggest you read the IRS link I provided above. Not all the money an organization like CBN generates is protected from taxes. We have to get out of the progressive line of thought that because it is a religious organization they do not pay any taxes.

 

Here is an interesting article. For those interested in truly gaining knowledge. Are you ready to remove the same tax exempt status from unions, social groups like the elks club or the National Organization for Women? They have the same non profit status. They are not allowed to endorse a candidate. They are not prohibited from criticizing or praising a candidate, nor prohibited from lobbying concerning specific issues as long as that lobbying is not a substantial part of their organization:

 

IRS guidelines for nonprofits—which are available on the agency’s Web site—are often misunderstood. While many people use these terms interchangeably, the IRS specifically defines “politics” as seeking to influence the election of candidates and “lobbying” as seeking to influence legislation.

 

According to the IRS, all 501 © (3) nonprofits cannot endorse or oppose candidates for elected office and make financial contributions to political campaigns. In 1964, the liberal Protestant magazine Christian Century lost its tax-exempt status for one year after it endorsed President Lyndon Johnson for re-election.

 

Nonprofit organizations, however, can certainly praise or criticize candidates, elected officials, political parties, and their stands on public policy issues and controversies without specifically telling people to vote for or against them. This is what many nonprofits have been doing since the passage of the 1954 Internal Revenue Act, which added section 501 © to the federal tax code that specified the types of organizations that qualified for tax-exemption.

 

The IRS recognizes that the heads of nonprofits, including churches, can exercise their individual rights as private citizens without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of their organizations. For example, in January 2008, the Rev. Calvin O. Butts, the influential pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City, endorsed then-Senator Hillary Clinton for president. The Rev. Butts made the endorsement at a press conference held on a public sidewalk. Had the Rev. Butts endorsed Senator Clinton from his church’s pulpit, it would have violated the IRS’ guidelines because he would have involved his tax-exempt organization. If any Catholic cardinal or bishop wished to make an endorsement in the 2012 election, he could have legally done so by writing an op-ed for a secular newspaper or appearing in studio on a television or cable news program.

 

The IRS affirms that 501 © (3) nonprofits can engage in some lobbying just as long as lobbying is not a “substantial” part of the organization’s regular activities. The fact that a nonprofit’s lobbying on a piece of legislation may have generated considerable media attention and even criticism—such as the Catholic bishops’ lobbying in 2009 against the inclusion of abortion coverage in ObamaCare—does not mean that it violated the IRS’ limits.

 

 

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1891/the_church_nonprofits_and_taxes.aspx#.UpgO3LK9KSM

 

So do progs support removing all non profit status? The myth that churches and religious organizations get treatment other groups do not is just that, a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...