Some even go under. Why the special recognition? Is it because we are a Christian nation?

Just asking.

Yes I know you can give example where that is abused but they are not designed to make a profit.

Right? Christian nation and everything?

representative or senator.

"The IRS treats your organization better if you profess belief in a supernatural deity," Silverman said.

Some non profits are more non profit that others.

Carry on.

or if not a double standard, at least special consideration?

They are not trying to get rid of tax exempt status for houses of worship?

Just curious.

Respect.

rid of the tax exemption.

other non-profits.

Are you saying that houses of worship should be given special consideration?

such as the non-politicking rule.

Frankly, any house of worship that wants tax exempt status should file to be a charity, and follow all the same oversight rules of secular charities, including opening up all books to government oversight. But we both know that won't happen.

Places of worship should have no special considerations in this or any country.

Never mind the fact that I think that places of worship are no more than scams that prey on the vulnerable. No not just that, its the attitudes of people like you, your first response was that we gotta protect the churches. Fuck fair rules, fuck equal protection.

Its attitudes like this that, for example, allows day cares ATTACHED TO CHURCHES to be exempt from oversight rules on safety, building codes, etc. Many children have been injured and even killed because of this lack of oversight. But we gotta protect the churches!

Its attitudes like this that allows groups like Catholic Charities to DEMAND the right to federal and state money while trying to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination laws in adoption, even housing and employment. But we have to try to protect the churches.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

or at least not of the same class as you, being our superior Christian overlords. And the funny thing is that you can pretend to be our friends and allies, but when it comes down to it, you enjoy putting boots to our necks. Its the rush of the thing, the idea of being on top of the pile. So go ahead, be a condescending Christian, we non-Christians are more than used to it, we expect it, just don't put out a hand in friendship when you have the fingers of your other hand crossed behind your back.

Your the one who got condesending to me. I tried to be understanding but I don't see it your way so if that makes me persecuting you then I can't help you.

" you enjoy putting boots to our necks"

I can't believe you posted this garbage to me. You know nothing about me so don't even bother trying.

And don't cry to me that your not really a citizen because your not a believer. That may work in AA but I don't buy that bullshit!

you are rather transparent about it, its not garbage if its true. You are so goddamned happy that your religion's privileges weren't revoked you failed to even consider whether its fair or equitable. All to preserve privilege.

than everyone else?

Why is it that the suggestion that religious organizations be held to the same standards as secular ones causes the religious to lose their goddamned minds?

and protects your right to be an atheist--or should--as much as his right to be a Christian. The religious organizations are exempt from taxes because of how courts have interpreted the First Amendment.

As for Christians being treated better, how do you mean?
I don't see how one's religion is much of an issue in modern day public life. The only time I see it raised is in hospitals, to which I reply, "Why, do you plan on killing me?" I can think of no other circumstance in which anyone asks about my religious affiliation.

As for me, I'm non-religious and don't really know what to call myself. I don't know if God exists, but I don't resent the fact some people choose to worship, anymore than I resent the fact some are atheists. To each his own. I do find evangelicalism of all persuasions annoying, however.

for example, churches are exempt from the same oversight rules that other non-profits must obey, such as submitting annual reports, etc.

Also, just a note, it wasn't the courts, but law and custom that exempted churches from taxation, it also isn't as old a practice as people think.

In many states, church affiliated day cares and schools are exempt from such basic oversight as building codes, training for teachers/caretakers, etc. Oversight and regulations that secular private schools and day care organizations have to follow. This can, obviously, lead to some dire consequences.

As far as examples in public life, well there is the recent court decision on public prayer in town meetings and other official government functions. Great way to reinforce second class status to minority religions when the trappings of the majority religion are given a government stamp of approval.

Some governments are even bolder:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/23/virginia-county-board-says-no-followers-of-pre-christian-deities-allowed-to-deliver-prayers/#.U4CX3fqWURw.twitter

that is not hrmjustin's fault for being a Christian.

majority status and default privilege. Why should churches be given automatic tax exemption when other organizations have to work for it? What is so special about them?

take it up with James Madison.

That's not an argument, you do realize that, right?

stop our programs because they cost a lot of money.


You don't know a damn thibg about me. Take s look at your words before you judge me. You accused me of being a phony and "you enjoy putting boots to our necks".

I can't take anything you say to me seriously anymore.

your opinions mean nothing to me.

Perhaps you should consider what it feels like to be called names.

Or do you consider that another "boot on your neck"?

Calling you on your crap is hardly apologetics.

and defends it at every opportunity? Like your voice matters.

Hell, you have yet to articulate what YOU think of LGBT people, why is that?

Listen, this "hate organization" is the exact same organization you belonged to for many years. Whatever angst you experienced hardly adds up to a cogent, let alone rational or objective, viewpoint.
,
Grow up. The world doesn't revolve around you and your hates.

Rug is very gay friendly. If you and others would quit with the hostilities and truly ask his opinion you would find out as I personally did yeas ago that he is very pro LGBT friendly. If you asked rug you wiuld find out that rug is one of the biggest challengers to the bishops of the RCC. But you don't know this because of the hostilities here.

You dislike me but as a gay man I can tell you rug is gay friendly and I am appalled that you would imply something else.

This post is really ugly and completely uncalled for.

The member you are attacking has been consistently supportive of atheist groups, rights and separation issues.

If you are feeling persecuted, perhaps you have some personal responsibility for that based on your own behavior and attitude, but you certainly aren't being persecuted here or by this member.

Why in the world you would think it's ok to attack an ally in this way escapes me, but you do absolutely nothing to advance your cause by doing so.

I hope he puts you on ignore He doesn't deserve this kind of treatment.

still subject to the laws.

If increased oversight is what is needed, so be it.

exempt from most state or federal tax codes.

If I sound cynical, that's because I am, I'm just recognizing our reality.

That's not the fault of the churches and the solution is not to change the rules for all churches, but to enforce them for the ones that are not in compliance.

then they won't pay taxes. But maybe some big Mega-Churches that make millions should?

Even if this were ruled to not violate the first Amendment, there is just too much support for it. Very few politicians would even suggest it, let alone support it.

If they enforced the rules that are already in place for non-profits, this would not be an issue. It doesn't require any new legislation at all.

that bring in millions?

for non-profits and other charitable organizations, they most certainly can tax them.

They can also revoke their status if they campaign for candidates.

But they turn a blind eye.

They are exempt just by being religious and don't have to meet one of the other exempt purposes as everyone else does, like relief of the poor, the distressed or the underprivileged, etc.

They get a parsonage exemption and have some exemptions from annual filings, both of which I think should be re-examined.

But the other requirements are the same. They have to meet the criteria for 501©3's just like any other non-profit.

The problem is with the lax enforcement by the IRS and that some supposedly religious organizations are taking gross advantage of the loopholes.

Until secular and governmental agencies step up to the plate to replace the assistance given to untold millions around this earth that is currently provided by religious organizations, it is folly to suggest that their tax status be eliminated.

It would also be a 1st amendment violation to deny them an exemption granted to secular organizations doing the same kind of work.

A religious organization automatically qualifies as being for exempt purposes just by being religious. Other organizations have to meet other rules to be considered for exempt purposes and therefore exempt from taxation.

So if you have two organizations that are identical except that one is religious and the other is not and neither of them meets any of the other exempt purposes rules then the religious organization will be exempt from taxation and the non-religious organization will not. The non-religious organization would have to do charitable work like helping the poor or distressed. The religious organization doesn't have to do charitable work - it is automatically exempt just for being religious.

aren't required to be "charitable" either. A nonprofit organization qualifies if its purpose is religious, educational, scientific, or charitable; or if it promotes literature and/or the arts; or if its goal is to prevent cruelty to to children or animals.

,

I think a lot of people that advocate for removing religious organizations don't really understand what is going on here.

Worse yet, I think they fail to consider the unintended consequences of removing the current tax status on religious organizations that provide otherwise unavailable services to the neediest among us.

a member of a good many 501c3 organizations. I have sat on the Board of Directors of several and co-founded a few. An organization must first obtain nonprofit status under the applicable state law, and only then may it apply to the IRS for 501c3 status. As you noted, those are two separate processes to obtain two separate statuses, and some posters seem to be confusing them.

I agree with you entirely about the continuing need for religious organizations to provide social services. In my community, the Catholic Church sponsors the only battered women's shelter; the only charity that provides anyone who walks in with three hot meals a day; the only overnight shelter for homeless women and parents with children; the only non-political agency to help people in need (who are not also substance abusers) with their utilities and rent; the only free legal help for low-income people in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure for overdue property taxes, et freaking cetera.

When the complainers pony up and fund such projects themselves, THEN they'll have some grounds to bitch. Not before.

majority of the poor people.

Very unfortunately, their policies about birth control and women's reproductive care in general were extremely problematic.

But in other areas, they were stellar and deserve nothing but credit for what they have done.

Religious organizations also provided pretty much everything that might be available for people with chemical dependency, chronic mental illness and, worst of all, dual diagnosis.

But they couldn't even keep up with the need. The mere suggestion that they be somehow handicapped sets my teeth on edge.

And don't even get me started on who stepped up to the plate during the AIDS crisis.

Some crusaders are really not able to see the whole picture. In their desire to destroy religion, they are blinded by who would be hurt the most.

Organizations that are religious don't have to be educational, scientific or charitable or promote arts.

NT

She said:

NO organization has to fall into two categories; one does it. Scientific organizations don't have to promote animal protection; arts organizations don't have to be scientific; only explicitly charitable organizations are required to be charitable.

The law lumps these categories together because they act for the public good. If you don't think religious organizations serve the public good, read my post #110. Read the last paragraph as many times as it takes you to Get It.

If not, why do you think they should have an exemption based solely on the fact that they meet those criteria.

I'm not going to continue with this debate. It's becoming just about semantics.

The bottom line fact is that religious organizations provide desperately needed assistance to the neediest among us. Without them, the most marginalized in this country would be in even worse conditions than they already are.

Those that just make blanket statements about changing their tax status are selfish and short sighted.

I understand that you are trying to make a point, but I think you are entirely wrong about organizations getting the exemption solely for being religious. They also have to meet the criteria for non-profits in general. They have to file the paperwork that shows that they meet that criteria. The exception occurs with the lack of demand for further documentation, and, as I have said, I would agree that they should have to update that yearly.

Bottom line is that I think your take on this is wrong. It's confusing and I have read as much as I could find and I think you are mistaken.

They don't need to meet other criteria because they are already the desired end. Worshiping of itself doesn't serve the public good. In those cases where an organization both worships and serves the public good in some way then they're good to go. Those organizations that worship and don't serve the public good would not get an exemption if I were writing the rules.

And you're mistaken about the paperwork. Churches do not have to apply for 501(c)(3) status - they are presumed to qualify for it without applying. All other organizations have to apply for it.

Not all of them, but most. I could also make the argument that while some arts and scientific organizations inherently serve the public good, some (and possibly many) do not.

Why would you be right and I be wrong? If we are going to evaluate the organizations in terms of "serving the public good", I would argue that we need to apply that criteria to all those who apply, and not just religious organizations.

The reading I have done indicates that churches do have to do the initial application, but if you are correct, I would support that they be required to do so in order to show that they meet the criteria.

My view is that art serves the public good inherently, meaning that just by existing every instance of art contributes in some way to the public good. And that all science serves the public good inherently, meaning that every time even the smallest increase in scientific knowledge occurs that is in some way to the public good.

And regarding the meaning of "inherent", something can't be inherent if it's sometimes there and sometimes not. Here's the merriam-webster.com definition:

there are also opportunities for abuse and scam within this category (as well as science).

It comes down to who makes the judgement and which categories you want to give a general exemption to, even though some may not meet the criteria.

Should Ken Ham get a pass on his creation museum because he calls it science?

I could also make the argument that not every instance of art or science are for the good, and, in fact, some could be quite destructive.

And a further distinction that I think should have been obvious is that between the thing itself and its inherent good versus something that someone does with the thing. So the scientific knowledge about the atom and fusion and fission is to the public good. Obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki by using that knowledge was (in my opinion) not to the public good and using it for nuclear power is not (in my opinion) to the public good. But the knowledge itself has intrinsic worth, apart from what someone does with it.

The question is who makes those determinations, what criteria is used and whether they should vary significantly between these three groups that we are discussing.

Again, the argument can be made that religious groups and institutions provide an inherent good, but what is done with it might not be so good.

At any rate, I support tighter regulation and a take down of the groups that are clearly abusing the exemption. It is the blanket elimination that I, and probably most people in this country, would object to.

So it seems a compromise is in order that addresses the problems without creating new ones.

Perhaps you and I can even agree on that.

I agree that not all "art" makes a worthwhile social contribution. And while science has given us many wonderful things for our health and knowledge, it's also done devastating, sometimes irreparable, harm.

And, if we do, who decides what those criteria are and who decides whether certain organizations enforce the criteria?

As a scientist, I would also say that some "science" is bogus. There are people doing "studies" that really don't meet any kind of scientific standard and really are not worthwhile or making any kind of contribution.

Yes, churches do have to meet the same criteria for non-profit status that other non-profit organizations have to meet if they want such status. This involves submitting paperwork and an application to the state, not to the IRS or federal government. Texas requires the submission of a mission statement, a set of bylaws, articles of incorporation, a statement of whether the applicant is a membership or non-membership organization, and a whole pile of other papers.

At this point, churches are automatically granted federal 501c3 status, but they do not receive an IRS letter of determination that they would receive if they went through the application process. (Religious organizations other than actual churches do have to go through the whole procedure to obtain 501c3 status, just like any other non-profit.) This means that they do not pay federal income tax as corporations and don't have to file annual 990's. That's all it means.

Most churches (and other public service organizations) do apply officially for 501c3 status because there is a long list of advantages that the letter of determination gives them. Without the official letter of determination, churches are subject to state and local taxation. That means that if the First Presbyterian Church secretary goes to Wallmart to buy paper plates and other serving ware for the church picnic, she either has to have a copy of the IRS letter in hand or pay the sales tax.

All governmental and almost all private grant-making entities require a copy of the 501c3 letter before they'll even look at an organization's application. No 501c3, the app lands straight in the shredder. Churches not excepted.

Without the 501c3 letter, donations to an organizations are not tax-deductible for the donors. No 501c3, the giver can't claim a deduction on his/her own income tax return. No deduction, there goes a truckload of money out the door. Churches not excepted.

Now, have some churches abused their 501c3 status? They most certainly have when they engage in politics. If they want to do that, they should apply as 501c4's. Should the IRS come down like a hammer on churches that have abused their 501c3 status? Absolutely.

Meantime, as cbayer says, the churches are providing services to the public that government and private organizations cannot or will not offer. Under those circumstances, the argument to deny non-profit or tax-exempt status to churches is strictly an argument for and by the privileged for the purposes of maintaining their privilege.

I can't tell you how many times I have looked at various sites trying to get real clarity on this and failed to do so.

I think I was missing the distinction between state and national status. I did know that most churches did go through the formal application process, but did not really understand why if they weren't required to do so..

Great and much appreciated post.

With your permission, I would like to use it in the future when discussing this.

And of course you may use it.

I've been through these processes with several 501c3 orgs, scientific, religious, educational, humane, etc.. Not having the formal IRS letter of determination can be financially crippling to a non-profit. I suspect that many churches that do not have them are shoestring operations without paid staff or sufficient organization--Board, officers, etc..--to establish themselves as corporate entities at all.

I've worked for non-profit hospitals, so I was familiar with some of this, but not nearly as extensively as you.

I would support efforts to change that.

But there are those that say that churches shouldn't qualify for any of the exemptions, even if they meet the criteria that other organizations have to and I would strongly object to that.

I don't believe that the information in your second paragraph is entirely correct. For example, any religious organization that participates in promoting or campaigning for candidates technically is no longer entitled to the exemptions at all.

This is where the IRS has been negligent.

And we may be running into trouble by using charitable and non-profit interchangeably. The issue here, if I understand this correctly, are the rules concerning non-profits, which don't necessarily have to to with charity at all. That is where the rules are the same.

The tax exempt status for churches should not continue. When it is for the express purpose of maintaining their religious beliefs with salaries and maintenance of their properties it should not be allowed. If they want to create a separate group for the function of charitable work to the community then the exemption is acceptable.

Until the government and secular organizations step up to the plate and start doing the things that religious organizations do for the poorest and most marginalized among us, this will remain a very weak and hollow argument.

Tax exempt status applies to all organizations that qualify, be they religious or not. While religious organizations get a parsonage exemption, and personally I think that should be reconsidered, this whole argument about taking away the tax exemptions for religious organizations that truly meet the criteria is just lame.

The problems lie with the IRS, who do not enforce their rules when it come to many religious and secular groups who claim the exemption and really do not quality.

Do you think the tax exempt status for all charitable organizations should be removed or just for churches? If so, why?

There needs to be a wall between worship and services. There is no reason that they can't create a separate entity that is solely charitable.

Why should I or anyone financially support another religion that I oppose for operations that have nothing to do with charitable work?

The amount of that overhead should be evaluated and restrictions in place. Unless you want a first amendment violation, why should churches be treated any differently than other charitable organizations.

I am quite sure there are many kinds of charitable organizations and non-profits that you would oppose in principal.

It's important to make the distinction between those that are abusing the system and those that aren't. Those that propose making rules that are different for religious groups as opposed to other groups are at risk of harming the most needy among us.

But overhead/administrative does not include outside activity not related to the work. That would be like an employee working at a business but performing work for someone else not related to the employer on the employer's dime.


There would be no harm to the needy. All a religious group has to do is set up a charity and keep the finances separate.

It's fundraising, organization, property and participation. In fact, much of it is charitable itself. It's just like other charitable organizations, but often with an much lower overhead because of the degree of volunteerism and the built in mechanism for fund raising.

The only thing that is generally not related is the weekly service or service and maybe some bible study classes. While there are exceptions and they deserve some scrutiny, most churches operate on a shoestring. Most ministers have second jobs to support themselves and more often than not there is one other single paid employee (the secretary).

Perhaps you have had no exposure to your run of the mill mainstream church? It certainly doesn't sound like it.

that churches frequently make their space available to other nonprofit organizations. Many host regular AA and NA meetings, Boy and Girl Scout groups, concerts, art shows, literacy and citizenship classes, vaccination clinics, food pantries. The Episcopal Church in my neighborhood is also my precinct's polling place. A Catholic Church in one of our poorest neighborhoods offered its parish hall to an environmental group who were taking depositions to force the Border Patrol to abandon plans to spray the riverbank next to their homes with a particularly nasty herbicide. That same group met regularly at a liberal Baptist church whose pastor was on the Board. (Yes, Virginia, there really are a few liberal Baptist churches. )

In short, attemping to cripple churches by burdening them with requirements other 501c3's don't have to meet would result in a whole lot of collateral damage. Do you really want to do that?

Secular, community-based non-profit, 501(c)3.

Meanwhile, the church up the street from me has a large commodities program - food, children's clothing, basic household goods - with no screening once a week. City, County and publicly funded.

Both have dealt with disruptive clients for one reason or another. They have the experience and an approach to deal with that.

Ironically, the church staffs one lunch a week - cooks and serves - at the community center. Ad do other organizations. None are too pleased with the drug-testing proposal.

Don't you notice the huge mega churches and the high living of some of the celebrity preachers? They're not Mother Teresa material. They're big business and should pay their fair share of taxes. If they can't exist within the free market they should close. If they actually returned all their income to the poor and needy they wouldn't have much taxable income anyway. Also I was raised Roman Catholic and have first hand knowledge of the luxurious living, adultery and hypocritical actions of several priests. The other Christian organizations have been exposed over the years for over indulgence. I believe Jesus said to pray in private.

My parish while we have assets needs the exemption to continue to provide services.

You know how income taxes work right? There are reasonable expenses. Helping the poor etc would be acceptable. Your church would probably owe no tax, but Billy Graham and Pat Robertson would have to pony up. I believe most people would agree that's fair.

it's the price I'm willing to pay for our society to function. Render unto Caesar right? We digressed here. Why should atheists, who hold strong beliefs of their own, have to pay taxes?