It's a shame that those dead beats get away raking in the dollars, using their pulpits for self serving politics and getting away without paying a penny.

all, which is lazy extremism at best.

Secondly, while religious organizations do have some tax exemptions that all non-profits in this country have, they still pay taxes.

Property taxes fund local services that the church consumes:

Police
Fire
EMS
Stormwater Run-Off
Utility access
Road access/maint

I pay all of these things through my property taxes, and since they pay none, I pay a share of theirs as well to gross-up the budget totals to fill the actual demand. And they do it, at a much higher rate of consumption than I do. The impermeable surface square footage of my house and driveway is a pitiful fraction of the building and parking lot they maintain.

What taxes do they pay, that you referred to? Because they are sure as hell freeloading off me at the local tax level.

IRS investigation and enforcement of the rules regarding non-profit groups, both religious an non-religious.

But the church down the street from you is not typical and most churches run on a shoestring and use their property to provide charitable services in their communities.

To the extent the facility is not meeting the non-profit criteria, I agree it should be taxed.

You want to do something? Encourage the administration to force the IRS to enforce the laws.

What an organization pays or doesn't pay depends on their non-profit status.

I don't see the need to link them in any way.

Supporting them explicitly makes them a fact of life, not the other way around.

are entitled to certain tax benefits, be they religious or not.

To exclude some organizations from these benefits simply because they are religious would be a first amendment violation.

However, it need not be an 'all or nothing' exemption.

If a sports stadium sometimes also allowed homeless people to camp on the field, that would likely not exempt their millions in income from taxes.

if they provided such a service, but they would not meet the criteria as a non-profit.

Most churches do meet the criteria. It's not supposed to be an all or nothing and I agree that there is clearly abuse of this.

I again put this at the feet of the IRS.

One prohibition that applies to all non-profits is that they can't advocate for individuals candidates (but can advocate for causes). Some churches are openly defying this rule and basically challenging the IRS to step in. The IRS is so lame in this area, that they aren't even taking steps to audit the churches that are blatantly breaking that rule. All of those churches should have their tax exempt status revoked.

...someone once told me that

Some fit that description - some are local Church's mostly concerned with tending to their flocks. I doubt the big denominations will suffer that much; but smaller Churchs will feel the pinch.

Bryant

We have too much debt to allow Non-Profits and churches to be tax exempt. (walk away) "Using their pulpits for serving politics and getting away without paying a penny".....It worked for us in 2008 and 2012 with getting out voters from inner city churches. Broad brush is not a good way to convey things.

kids, and many others things.

If the tax exemption gives the Government the right to dictate church practices

There's no point in progressing to the "then" statement in the if/then formula... because tax exemption does not give the government the right to dictate church practices.

And retain their tax-exempt status?

Bryant

The Catholic church "denies marriage" to heterosexual couples (if one or both are unbaptized... or previously married... or rejects having children... or any number of other impediments).

The church has no say whatsoever regarding the civil aspects of marriage... they have the only say on whether or not that church will recognize the marriage within the church (or will perform the ceremony).

What if a church believed, in the example above, that marriage should be only between two people of the same race? Should such a Church retain it's tax-exempt status? What if they just prefer not to perform services for non-white people?

And how is that different from a restaurant that doesn't want to provide services to gays or blacks? Except that they do it while not having to pay any taxes?

Bryant

What if a church believed, in the example above, that marriage should be only between two people of the same race?

Then why would anyone want to be a member... let alone get married there?

Should such a Church retain it's tax-exempt status?

There's no "should" here. The government has no option of declaring religious belief of practice. There are obvious exceptions to the rule (human sacrifice, etc) - but who they consider to be married (which has zero impact on who is legally married)? Nope.

What if they just prefer not to perform services for non-white people?

Again... there may be such churches today. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

And how is that different from a restaurant that doesn't want to provide services to gays or blacks?

There is no constitutional protection dividing government and the food services industry.

You definitively demolished any "point" he was trying to make as invalid. Well done.

I'm surprised to find you on the other side of this issue; is it possible that your disdain for me is coloring your reading? Or do you actually favor Churches retaining their tax-exempt status?

Bryant

do not say that tax exempt status can revoked if the church is a bunch of bigoted dickheads. For a lot of other reasons, yes, but not that.

It's the marriage license issued by the state that's important.

Get a marriage license, the state considers you married, whether there's a ceremony or not.

Have a marriage ceremony conducted without having a license, the state doesn't consider you to be married.

Churches have always been able to deny marrying people. It doesn't matter to the state.

A couple of years ago, when a church did pass a resolution against mixed marriages, no-one was saying "we should withdraw its tax-exempt status", they just said it was disgraceful. The tax-exempt status is just assumed to continue.

Religion in the USA operates under libertarian free market conditions; it can do what the fuck it wants, without regulation, and avoid a lot of taxes, but people may vote with their feet and leave. That may, of course, include finding a religion that panders to their prejudices and bigotries, if they think a church is too liberal.

"So the religion can deny the marriage service to people it feels are unworthy of it?"

Yes, that's what happens. Whether it should happen is a different matter. But I think the chances of anyone passing laws saying "tax-exempt religions must not discriminate" is minuscule. Religions get a free pass (like they get a free pass about contraception insurance coverage - everyone said "oh, of course religions shouldn't have to pay for that coverage like everyone else - we're just arguing about employers with personal beliefs&quot . They are 'sacred'.

"And how is that different from a restaurant that doesn't want to provide services to gays or blacks? "

It's a religion. Therefore it gets special treatment.

Just that they can't impose their belief on everyone else and especially make it part of law. Meaning that they don't want anyone in the church or civil to marry same sex.


Personally, I would be all for forcing any minister to marry same sex couples if they supported a total prohibition of same sex marriages that even applied outside their church.

IMO churches should not be tax exempt when the money goes for salaries of the minister and other workers related to preaching and education, for construction and maintenance of their worship place. The contributions should not be deductible either. Unless it goes to a charitable purpose that is not religion based.

It would also be better if there was a way that did not tie the religious aspect of marriage to the government policy. Possibly cutting the government recognition of any marriage performed by a clergy person and not recognizing marriage as nothing more than a legal partnership for the purpose of cohabitation and sharing of property. There would be no vows exchanged for the legal filing and any religious ceremony or their documents would not be filed with the state.

How would you force ministers to marry same sex couples?

Bryant

Knock down your strawman on your own.

Personally, I would be all for forcing any minister to marry same sex couples if they supported a total prohibition of same sex marriages that even applied outside their church.

Seriously - are you even trying anymore?

Bryant

Seriously, are you even comprehending anymore?

No one, NO ONE, is advocating for or trying to force churches to marry anyone.

Except that is what Liberal Fighter seems to be advocating, right? I mean the fact that you agree with his rationale for forcing a minister to perform a same sex marriage doesn't change the fact that he is in fact advocating that some Ministers be forced to marry same sex couples.

We can talk about the rationale and whether that justifies it, but first why don't you admit that you were wrong when you said that "No one, NO ONE, is advocating for or trying to force churches to marry anyone."

Bryant

You're funny.

You get caught overreacting to a simple question and rather than admit your error like an adult would, you just pretend that I'm somehow being crazy.

You should consider growing up.

Bryant

You're the one yelling and throwing a temper tantrum.

Instead of just saying "Hey you are right, I guess he did call for forcing a minister to perform same sex marriages," like a child you just start laughing and smirking. It's very aggravating - if you were making any sort of coherent argument, I'd respond to that - but that's not the point to what you are doing is it?

Bryant

There is more to the statement you are referring to, yet you are unable, or unwilling to see it, because doing so undermines your entire point, which is so shallow that discussing it with you is a waste of intellectual energy.

Most of your posts in this group all lack any intellectual depth, and your inability to respond to criticism about that lack with anything but childish insults deserves nothing short of ridicule.

You've been told all of this before, by many others, yet here we are, going through it all over again.

You get what you give. Let's see if you learn anything.

if a Preacher teaches that same-sex Marriage should be illegal he should be forced to perform same-sex marriages - possibly this is hyperbole and he doesn't actually mean that literally - which is why I asked him to clarify his position by saying how would you force them.

I support Same Sex Marriage; I've voted in favor of it (or to be more precise voted against measures to restrict in each case it's come up).

My response to that "larger issue" was to ask for clarification from Liberal Fighter - you then inserted yourself into the middle of this by saying "No one, NO ONE, is advocating for or trying to force churches to marry anyone." and accusing me of setting up a strawman argument. It's clear that Liberal Fighter was advocating precisely that, even if he was doing it only rhetorically.

So on the larger issue I support legalizing Same Sex Marriage, but on the issue where you accuse me of employing a strawman argument I challenge your honesty.

Just take the license factor out of the equation on their side. Anything they do would not be recognized by the state. Something along the way of how they do it in parts of Europe. They don't care what happens in a church. But they do require a civil ceremony to make it legal. I would take the ceremony part out here in the US. Just fill out the application as needed and you are good to go. There would need to be disclaimers to the effect that it would still take a court order to dissolve the legal relationship.

Thank you for responding.

Bryant

the exemption won't go anywhere. To exclude only religious groups would be a 1st amendment violation.

These non-profits are prohibited from advocating for specific candidates, but permitted to advocate for causes.

The article really doesn't make the case that the tax exemption may disappear in the near future.

That's the problem and the solution. Enforce the IRS rules and the issue more or less goes away. The housing exemption has been ruled unconstitutional in a federal court (but stayed on appeal). We'll see where that goes.

These issues are important, but it is still up to the administration in power to enforce the rules, which Obama is apparently reluctant to do. That's too bad.

That's why it isn't enforced.

There are quite a few churches intentionally flaunting the rule because they want the IRS to take them to court. They're certain that the law would be overturned. As far as I've seen, the IRS has refused to take the bait even when the pastor sends a copy of his upcoming sermon telling people how to vote and essentially dares them to "come and get me".

As it stands, the rule is in place and the vast majority of the churches feel bound by it.

If such a case were to reach a senior court and they ruled against us? The churches would become a far more potent political force.

As it stands... we're talking about a handful of churches where almost everyone likely already agrees with the pastor on how to vote.

The housing exemption probably needs to go, particularly because it's so abused by some.

And I understand that. But the abuse is so rampant, I don't see the value of it. Plus, many taking the exemption are not pulpit clergy, but mere church administrators labelled as clergy. Certainly the churches will evolve on this issue (so to speak) if this case is upheld. But it has only been in place since the 1950's so it's not like it goes back to the founders.

I do, and have, warned of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. As has been stated by someone else in this thread, it is the small, marginal congregations that are likely to be most harmed by radical changes in the tax status.

Any contributions that pays the salaries of the clergy and staff or for construction and maintenance of churches does not serve public charities.

There needs to be a line drawn as to money used for charitable purpose vs. religious purposes.

Do you think that their salary and building maintenance expenses should be taxed?

The fact is that staff and buildings are used by non-profits to provide services whether they are religious or not.

You can not change the rules just for religious groups. That would be discriminatory and a violation of the first amendment.

Churches do absolutely nothing for the public good when it involves the ministering. If they want to do something for the public good such as feed or clothe people they can set up a non-profit for that purpose and any contributions would be tax deductible as well as tax exempt. But to have the resources that are focused solely on religious teaching tax exempt does not wash.

IMO it is bull that it would violate the 1st.

If you would rewrite the tax code to define religious non-profits differently than other non-profits, what other distinctions might you make?

Lots of non-profits do things other than feed and clothe people. It is very hard to tease out what exactly is charity and what isn't, but personnel, buildings, upkeep, education, community support and ministering can all be a part of doing something for the public good.

You are on a very slippery slope when you start to make judgements about what is and what is not being done for the public good. Be careful what you wish for - unintended consequences and all the.

Absolutely nada!

you are discriminating against them due to their being religious.

That's an violation.

If you want to invent some new rules about what non-profits can and can't do and apply them equally, that would be fine.

But you better not use language that would exclusively apply to religious groups.

It's pretty simple and, imo, what the writers fully intended.

when it was created.

The writers of the Constitution did not intend that to be the case as you state. There weren't non-profits during their time.


http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-26-1-the-virginia-statute-for-religious-freedom.html

[Excerpts]
Jefferson strongly believed not only in freedom of worship, but also in an end to all control and support of religion by the state. (Control meaning during that time with a church body having power within the government.)

Jefferson’s bill was supported by Baptists and evangelicals, who generally believed in the principle of voluntary support.

Read Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". Among other things he states that the Christian religion disavows dependence on the powers of the world. If so, why are they now dependent on tax exempt status?

A nonprofit is a nonprofit because it meets the IRS criteria as such. Religious groups were not specifically included or excluded, many just met the criteria.

They are not dependent on the tax exempt status, they are entitled to it. To deny it to them just because they are religious would be a 1st amendment breach, imo, because it would impose discrimination based on religion.

This is why I have grown to support elimination of the parsonage exemption. It is the one area where religious groups are getting a break that others can't get, and that's problematic.

They would still be free to practice their religion. They would not be taxed at a higher rate than anyone else. They would not be given preference over other religions which as it is now many legislators and others still attempt to do.

The non-profit criteria that churches meet is not a non-religious basis. It is based on a religious factor. Tax exemption was granted to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes. Of which, no part of the net income is to benefit a stockholder or individual. That last part fits completely with your opposition to parsonage exemption.

There is nothing charitable about churches when it involves any of the issues I described before. They do have charity they perform but as I indicated before they should keep that contribution separate from their church by means of a charity organization.

that's discrimination. That's interfering with their ability to function like any other organization. That's the state intruding into religion by designating that it will be excluded from the benefits assigned to other organizations that meet the same criteria but are not religious.

They would be taxed at a higher rate than their non-religious counterparts.

The non-profit criteria is exactly those used for non-religious organizations. It is not based on a religious factor at all. The only exception to this is the parsonage exemption, and I think a case could be made for it's elimination.

If you want to change the rules about what expenses should or should not be taxed for 501{c}3 organizations, you have to change them for all of those organizations, religious or not.

And I'm not so sure that's really what you want to do.

The problem has been the lack of IRS enforcement of those criteria. This has allowed some organizations, both religious and not, to claim the status and take the breaks even though they are breaking all the rules.

They have to meet specific requirements based on the type. It is not 100% one for all.

The parsonage exemption is the only one that is different, from my understanding. I have searched and can't find anything that would otherwise distinguish a religious organization from any other 501{c}3.

something to back up your claim?

As I have stated before, an organization under 501(c)3 does not qualify because they all meet the same criteria. There are 8 activities that are covered of which religious is one. And absolutely none of them would meet the same criteria for each of the activities. They only need to meet one of those activities along with any other requirements to qualify. Not all 8 but just one.

Wiki helps out with their info as follows:
Churches must meet specific requirements in order to obtain and maintain tax exempt status; these are outlined in IRS Publication 1828. Specific requirements!!

that churches have any criteria that are different than a 501{c}3. If you have some links that would educate me that this is not the case, I would seriously be interested in seeing them. If there are 8 criteria and religion is one of them, it certainly is not sufficient, and as you note they have to meet all the other requirements.

The requirements you refer to are the ones that they all have to meet, as far as I can tell.

To say that religious organizations should be excluded just because they are religious would seem to me to be a first amendment violation.

What is it you are proposing exactly?

For all the other requirements they are treated like other organizations. So to be a 501(c)(3) requires being non-profit, not being primarily for influencing legislation, and not campaigning for candidates. All these rules are the same for everybody.

But there is also a requirement to be for exempt purposes, which is defined as one of:

1. charitable
   
2. religious
   
3. educational
   
4. scientific
   
5. literary
   
6. testing for public safety
   
7. fostering national or international amateur sports competition
   
8. preventing cruelty to children or animals

If there were an organization that did all the same things as some church but in a way that could not be called religious, then it would not get the same tax-favored treatment as the church. (This assumes, obviously, that neither of these hypothetical organizations has one of the other exempt purposes.)

So if you took "religious" out of that list of exempt purposes, that would be the way to treat churches like other organizations. If the *church-or-other-organization* meets any of the remaining seven exempt purposes (and the other requirements) then it will be a 501(c)(3). If the *church-or-other-organization* doesn't meet one of those remaining seven then it won't be a 501(c)(3).

I don't know whether there's been a case of an organization that quacks like a church in every way except that it wasn't religious and therefore didn't get 501(c)(3) status. But clearly there could be such a case. Apparently UU "churches" are considered to be for religious purposes and therefore eligible for 501(c)(3) but some of them push the limits of what you can call religious. I wonder if secular humanist groups are considered religious for this purpose. If they are not then they would not get 501(c)(3) status even though they meet every requirement of some churches except for not being religious (again assuming they don't meet one of the other seven exempt purposes).

It looks clear to me that if you took "religious" out of that list then that is how churches would be treated like everyone else.

Churches still have to meet other requirements as outlined in p1828.

It is not a 1st violation when all churches don't receive a benefit. It doesn't prevent them from practicing their religion. But it does force everyone to help support religious organizations they don't support through higher taxes because they don't pay taxes. In addition, including religion as a group is a sponsorship or endorsement by the government through the subsidizing of their activities with a tax exemption.

If a church can't stand on their own they don't even deserve tithing.

leave them more money/offset to lobby on social issues. An area that I frequently donate to combat their noxious positions on things like same-sex marriage.

Wonderful.

It's a nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.

based services that are provided by religious organizations and other non-profits across the country.

There are millions in this country whose lives depend on those organizations. Do you wish to change the tax status for all of them? Just religious organizations?

What about the non-profit political organizations that work for issues that you support like GLBT civil rights. Do you want to revoke their tax exemptions as well?

as any secular charity would be.

Allowing 'dual purpose' just makes everything more complicated.

There is one exception and that is the parsonage exemption, which is understandably under increased scrutiny.

Recently a non-religious group brought a case forward challenging the parsonage exception. To their great surprise, the court ruled that they probably met the criteria for the exemption. It was not at all the result they were aiming for, but presents some interesting dilemmas.

I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention purchase of medical insurance for employees, for instance.

as they shout 'my faith' in order to shield vast real estate investment holdings including tracts of undeveloped land, rental units, commercial real estate. The fact that they so willingly exploit that which they claim to hold sacred in order to accumulate wealth shows the true nature of their faith, their organization and of the teachings that are used to excuse such activity.

Land Asset Management Office


The Diocesan Real Estate Director serves as:
•The Asset Manager for all of the real property owned by the Roman Catholic Church in the State of Hawaii. Interfaces with the designated managing agent and legal counsel to achieve the highest operating value for all investment properties. Includes providing leasing services and lease administration for investment properties
http://www.catholichawaii.org/diocesan-offices/land-asset-management-office.aspx

Or do you think it should be rescinded?

I guess I'm having a hard time parsing your response. Other than that you think that the Catholic Church has too much land and are hypocritical.

Bryant

commercial investments. A light bulb is useful for finding cockroaches in the same way. Too much? Never said that. Just said when you buy land for profit and say it is for God, your God is profit.

should be considered Unrelated Business Income and subject to the Unrelated Business Income Tax

There does seem to be an odd exemption there

They get what they deserve, as far as I'm concerned. They want to influence policy they can pay to play.

First of all, you have the 1st amendment to deal with

Second of all, you have millions of people who would freak out at the mere mention of it. Torches and pitchforks would appear. Culpable politicians would be hiding down in holes under the floor. It would Armageddon, to use a phrase.