“Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s.”-Jesus of Nazareth
This is perhaps the most overlooked and deliberately ignored of Christ’s teachings, particularly amongst the most religious, conservative, and evangelical demographics of the United States. The admonition to give to the government that which the government rightfully requests is, in essence, an order by Christ to stop complaining and pay your taxes. Who fights harder in this country again taxation than the religious Right? That, however, is an issue for another day. The salient point in this post is that, quite perversely, Churches in the United States do not render unto Caesar. The fact is that churches are granted sweeping, easily abused, and rarely audited tax exemption.
Like it or not, we are all aware that there is a separation of Church and State in this country, so it may not be immediately obvious why religious organizations are, by default, granted tax exemption. Isn’t a tax exemption a direct government subsidizing of religious practice? In theory no, although in practice, that is often the case. Churches are granted tax exemption as 501c3 Non-Profit charitable organizations. This is the same tax exemption that is granted to many other charitable groups at the community and national level.
The concept of the Tax Exempt charitable organization is a sound idea, and one that I strongly support. The social theory is that taxation is money taken from individual entities, and pooled for investment towards the greater good of the entire community. In the case of charitable organizations, they are considered to already be contributing to the greater good in a more potent and direct way than taxation could, as seeking out and alleviating social distress is the primary goal of such an organization; therefore granting that organization tax exempt status allows more of its resources to be funneled directly into good charitable works. Such organizations must file paperwork demonstrating that their primary function is charitable work. Employees of these organizations may be paid, but the organization itself must not be profit seeking. Any such organization must also be politically benign, it may not use its resources to pursue the interests of any particular political party. These groups must also make their budgets and revenue available to the public to prove that their spending is focused on helping the community.
There is nothing wrong with the implementation of Tax Exemption for such groups. The problem is that Churches, and their associate conventions, are granted tax exemption automatically, with no need to submit the paperwork, prove their political neutrality, demonstrate their non-profit status, or own up to their charge of community betterment as a primary focus. Churches are given a pass on the rules all other similar groups must adhere to. The rationale for this automatic exemption is that Churches, by their very nature, will be charitable and community oriented, and bear no burden of proving it, or being subject to scrutiny on the issue. It is rare, to the point of being practically a non-event, for a Church to be audited or investigated for what they do with their tax exempt money, and may there be no mistake about it, we are not talking about small or inconsequential sums. Many readers may be imagining the small neighborhood church of their youth, making do with the modest tithes the small congregation manages to scrap together, the preacher residing in a humble parsonage. Indeed these kinds of churches to exist, but when you split religion up by demographic, and by control of wealth, these churches make up a small and quiet appendage on a much larger, louder, and hungrier dragon.
In any Midwestern town of an appreciable size, from populations as small as 5 or 6 thousand and up, you will find at least one large church, often with enough outbuildings and wings to be considered a campus. In cities with populations closer to 100, 000 you will often find multiple large expansive churches with properties worth a million dollars or more and congregations of thousands. Moving up the scale on step further you will find the Megachurches, which command congregations of tens of thousands, with multi-million dollar churches, stupendously rich pastors, and parsonages that rival the homes of the most over paid NFL stars. And still above that, you have the major centralized denominations, such as the Church of Latter Day Saints, Scientology, Catholicism, and Southern Baptist Convention. These groups command wealth beyond most people’s imagining, inform the hearts of minds of millions, and run massive international operations from palatial headquarters.
These groups do not pay property tax, income tax on any donation (their primary source of income is tithing of course), tax on parsonages, sales tax on market goods, or capital gains tax on investment. What we are seeing is the United States citizenry subsidizing religion through tax exemption on a scale of close to 100 billion dollars a year.
This would all be fine if these massive institutions had community service at the heart, commanding their budget, and being the main focus of their attention. An extra 100 billion dollars put towards helping people directly at the local level is something I could support, however financial records show that this is not a case. First, one may make an informal assessment by stepping into almost any church. You can’t help but become imminently aware of exactly what community the church is focused on, and that is the community in their pews. Churches are full of expensive ornaments of faith. Only the smallest and poorest of churches are without elaborate stained glass windows, dramatic architecture, sound systems, professional lighting, robes, goblets, trays, tapestries, ect. Larger churches drip with luxury, and Catholicism, for example, is known for the grotesque opulence of their facilities and services. When we glance about a typical church, it is difficult to imagine that community service is really the primary concern of those running the budget. On the face or it churches appear to hold pageantry and ceremony as priorities over genuine community service. Sadly, when examining their financial records, the numbers bear this out.
All other non-profit organizations must disclose their financial information as a matter of public record. Churches are, for no good discernible reason, exempt from this requirement. Because of this fact, getting a good idea of exactly how Churches use their funds is difficult, but a study reported by the Council for Secular Humanism reports that out of 271 US Congregations surveyed, and average of 71% of their budget was dedicated to operating expenses, leaving only 29% of funds to be spent outside the church. These numbers are echoed by a similar study done by Christianity Today which confirmed that 75% of the budget of the churches they surveyed was spent on payroll, building upkeep, supplies, and denominational fees, while 25% was spent outside the church, and 16% of that was spent specifically on missions, which often take place far abroad, and also serve the primary purpose of conversion, not charity. That leaves only a paltry 9% of the budget available for local charitable acts preformed as community service and not as conversion exercises.
On the face of it we have a convincing case that charity and community service are most certainly NOT the primary concern of religious institutions. With only a questionable 25% of their budget going to charitable acts, it is obvious that a great many things take priority over the stomachs of the hungry or the treatment of the sick. But perhaps these kinds of organizations and efforts are just expensive to run, and such a budgetary arrangement is to be expected? Predictably, this is not the case. We need only look to the example of a true charitable organization to prove it.
The American Red Cross is just as large and far reaching, if not much larger, than any religious institution. Their work is wide spread, from the local level to the international level, needing the same kind of administration as church charitable efforts, and requiring similar expenses in travel and supplies So we should expect the budgets of these two charitable organizations to be at least roughly similar, if indeed churches were run as charitable non-profits that is.
The American Red Cross spends 92% of its total revenue directly on charity, spending only 8% of its budget on operating costs. It is obvious where the Red Cross’ priorities lie. We are forced to conclude that Churches are either grotesquely mismanaged, or that charity is further down their priority list than they’d like to admit.
It is clear that charity, community service, and honest non-profit work are not the primary functions of a church. At bare minimum we should expect a charitable organization to spend at least 51%, a simple majority, of its budget on charity, and almost no church meets even this low bar of consideration. When we compare the efforts of churches to that of a true charitable organization, the Red Cross, the presupposition that Churches are charitable is shown as a complete farce.
Please bear in mind: I have no problem with a church spending its money however it wishes. I have a big problem with granting them default tax exemption as a charitable organization. I know that the vast majority of small community churches are doing the best they can and don’t mean to be abusive of their tax exempt status. Being a Preacher is not a lucrative career, except for the few who weasel their way into the vital positions of large churches. However I contend that Churches ought to be made to file for non-profit status just like any other organization, and be held accountable to the same rules. The idea that we can trust churches to be generally charitable and dedicated to community service by sole merit of being a Church, is utter naivety. Churchs should have to prove it, demonstrate their charitable status, publish their financial information, refrain from partisan politics, and maintain a 501c3 status, just like everyone else.
After all, what exactly is a Church? A building covered with ornament and decoration of a particular theme, where groups of people show up every week and pay to sit in rows and watch a captivating performer tell them, more or less, exactly what they came to hear. That is not charity, that is theater, and it should be treated as such.
Last time I checked, the ACLU is also a non-profit organization that is tax exempt. The ACLU is also the champion of the idea of separation of church and state. So if we’re going to be using verses like “render unto Caesar what is due Caesar,” then it’s completely justified for me to use a verse like “remove the log from your own eye before trying to take the speck out of your brother’s.”
Plus, it seems like your mantra is “punish the many for the actions of few.” I happen to belong to one of the smaller churches you referenced initially, and there are far more churches with a congregation of less than 100 than there are churches with a congregation over 1,000. So I would suggest getting the facts right first. But also imagine yourself as a person hovering just above the poverty line and having to pay more taxes because the rich are making more money. That’s absurd, right? And yet that’s what you’re asking for churches to do.
Finally, I might be all for your proposition. However, this only works if the church is allowed to argue for legislations based on moral grounds due to religion. If you can allow the church to legislate morality, particularly without crying foul due to “separation of church and state,” maybe we can talk. Until then, the hypocrisy will have to scream for itself from your words.
I am sorry but I don’t understand your criticism, hostile tone, or accusation of hypocrisy.
What is unfair or hypocritical about saying, “here are the rules that all non-profit organizations have to follow, except Churches, which get automatic exceptions and are generally allowed to break the rules without fear of audit. I propose that Churches be held to the same non-profit rules as all other 501c3 organizations.”
That sounds fair to me. Obviously you disagree. Please point out what part of that seems unjust or hypocritical to you.
I also do not have a mantra of “punish the many for the actions of the few”. I have a mantra of “punish the guilty and allow the innocent to continue as they are.”
I believe I quite specifically said that any church that is honestly a non-profit, able to demonstrate that fact, can go on doing exactly what they are doing as far as I am concerned. My proposal would only punish those who are breaking the rules, or who certainly shouldn’t be considered non-profit in the first place. Who is being treated unfairly here?
Also, you have your demographics a bit skewed I believe. Yes, there are many more small neighborhood churches than there are mega churches. I believe if you go back above and read my post I said: “. Indeed these kinds of churches (small community churches) do exist, but when you split religion up by demographic, and by control of wealth, these churches make up a small and quiet appendage on a much larger, louder, and hungrier dragon.”
What I am saying here is that yes, there may be 5 thousand small neighborhood churches for every one megachurch, but the total tithes and congregations of those 5 thousands small churches put together probably still don’t match the tithes and congregations of one megachurch. And what about organizations like Catholicism, Mormons, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Southern Baptist Convention, ect. In these cases yes, you may have 2 or 3 thousands small community churches nation wide, but all of them contribute resources, dues, tithes, property, and materials to a larger centralized office of their faith that is at least as large, and in most cases much larger and more wealthy, than any megachurch.
No, you are simply incorrect. The strength of Christian wealth in this nation does not stay in the quite halls of small local congregations. It trickles up and balloons into these megalithic religious entities which it is absolutely obscene to consider charitable and to grant tax exemption to.
And your last bit……are you saying that you would be ok with removing a church’s tax exemption if they are allowed to play politics with their religious morals? If that is what you are saying then I 100% agree. If they are willing to give up their charitable tax exempt status they can say and do anything they please, the same as any other activist group. But if they are a 501c3 tax exempt group, then they are not allowed to play politics, even though they get away with it anyway.
Oh and one last note, direct quote from you: “If you can allow the Church to legislate morality without crying foul on “separation of church and state” then maybe we can talk.”
………”allow the church to legislate morality”……….
………….“church to legislate”……………….
Churches can’t legislate, numb nuts. That is called a theocracy, which we generally try to avoid in the civilized West.
So many fallacies, so little time. I will adress a couple of the most basic in the hopes that it may get you to think about the rest.
You said that, “Churches are granted tax exemption as 501c3 Non-Profit charitable organizations.”
That is not accurate. The reason for the tax exempt status of churches is recognized in 26 USC § 501(c)(3) as religious; specifically seperate from charitable, scientific, and the other identified classes. Just because religious and charitable institutions are both defined as exempt under the same section of the U.S. code does not mean they are considered the same thing by the Congress.
And, contrary to some social theorist that you neglected to cite, it is fallacious to assume that it is some contribution “to the greater good in a more potent and direct way than taxation could,” that is the reason for the exemption, because that is not expressly stated in the code. A much simpler explanation for the exemption would be similar to that promoted by the Supreme Court in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970), in which they held that:
“The grant of a tax exemption was not sponsorship of the organizations because the government did not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstained from demanding that the churches support the state. The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other.”
It is ironic that you should begin your blog with that particular quote from the New Testament. Perhaps you should examine it a little more closely. When asked a loaded question meant to trap him into supporting or opposing Caesar, “Jesus refused to confront the dichotomy as framed by his hostile questioners and instead pointed to the assumptions behind it” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar).
I would point out that your arguement seems more motivated by a desire to eliminate what you percieve to an unconcionable tax shelter than out of any desire to promote more charity, although charity is the thing you claim to strongly support.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (which you mistitled above), and a ward clerk (i.e., bookkeeper) for our local congregation. I am also an accountant by profession, and can tell you that you are wrong to assume that the administrative structure of and accounting for the funds donated to the Red Cross is in any way similar to that of a church. You are also completely ignoring the fact that that real strength of a church’s charity comes from volunteerism, which will never be reflected in the books. I can testify (in the legal sense, although I believe it in the spiritual sense as well) that my local congregation (with its completely unpaid layclergy) donates 10s of thousands of hours annually to its own needy as well as to others in the community. Even if 75% of the church’s budget goes to pay for administration (although I do not know the amount for my church specifically), the 100s of millions of volunteer hours put in by its 12 million+ members should qualify us to be exempt from taxes on our donations and the buildings and missions those donations help build and maintain.
Charity is about more than just money. It is about love and hope and brotherhood. Those things all make our society better, and I see no reason to propose a tax on organizations that trade in goodwill.
At first I was excited to see that an accountant for a church had replied to my post, and not just any Church, but one of the megalithic ones that are the primary target of my criticisms in this article (I do know the proper name of your Church. I assumed any educated reader would know which Latter Day Saints I was referring to.). However sir, after reading your reply, and doing additional research based on what you’ve said, I’m afraid you put me in the uncomfortable position of having to directly disagree with, and in fact call humbug, on a person who knows more than I on the topic in question. I never enjoy doing that, because it runs a great risk of sticking my foot in my mouth, but you leave me no other choice.
Let’s get to it:
A) “You said that, Churches are granted tax exemption as 501c3 Non-Profit charitable organizations. That is not accurate. The reason for the tax exempt status of churches is recognized in 26 USC § 501(c)(3) as religious; specifically separate from charitable, scientific, and the other identified classes.”
IRS.gov- “Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations.”
It would seem the IRS considers all 501c3s, and that would certainly included tax-exempt Churches, as charitable organizations, at least ostensibly. On the IRS website Churches are listed under the heading of “Charities and Non-Profits”, and all literature or commentary I can find regarding 501c3s seems to readily place them all under the Non-Profit heading (this includes the literature of Churches themselves). So it would seem that Tax Exempt Churches exist under the category of Charitable Non-Profit both in the technical sense, as cited from the IRS.gov website, and in the colloquial sense. So I feel justified in my statement.
In fact the only reason I can even fathom that a Church, or representative of a Church, would ever object to these labels is if meeting the most basic expectations of a group operation under those labels became too problematic or indefensible, as is the case here.
In other words, your comment seems a bit disingenuous.
B) “Contrary to some social theorist that you neglected to cite, it is fallacious to assume that it is some contribution “to the greater good in a more potent and direct way than taxation could,” that is the reason for the exemption.”
Obviously I disagree with those social theorists. I did, however, enjoy your quotation from the Supreme Court ruling. The idea that tax exemption for churches is promoting the separation of Church and State, expanding from Political Separation to fiscal separation as well, is a novel idea. However given a moment’s thought it’s clearly a bogus analysis.
If we truly wished financial separation of Church and State, then the Separation should not be one sided. What I mean is that a Church still retains the same protections, rights, infrastructure, economy, and other benefits as any other institution made up of people and property, but doesn’t pay their dues for those benefits. If separation were truly the intention, then Churches should be required to independently pay for everything that normally comes as part of being a tax paying entity. The idea that a church can have all benefits, but not pay taxes, ONLY makes sense under the model that they ARE paying their share, just in a charitable, non-profit, community based fashion, rather than through taxation.
Also, this idea is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Religion should be utterly invisible where taxation is concerned. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of Religion…remember? The very fact that there is a separate category of tax law, set aside just for Churches apart from all other groups, is a transgression. It erodes the separation of Church and states, and certainly doesn’t promote it, as your Supreme Court citation seems to imply.
What your Religious group or purpose is, or whether you have a religious group or purpose at all, should be a complete non-issue in deciding your tax exemption status. All groups, regardless of their affiliation with any particular deity, should have to follow the same rules to warrant tax exemption.
Please explain to me what part of that seems unfair to you.
C) “It is ironic that you should begin your blog with that particular quote from the New Testament.”
Irony was my intention.
D) “I would point out that your argument seems more motivated by a desire to eliminate what you perceive to an unconscionable tax shelter than out of any desire to promote more charity, although charity is the thing you claim to strongly support.”
You are mostly correct. The purpose of this article was not to make a call for greater charity, but rather to highlight those who wear charitable masks while not living up to that expectation, and that the current system not only doesn’t prevent that, but actually encourages it. I have written other posts that encourage greater charity, but this is not one of them.
In fact, I’m not actually asking Churches to change their behavior at all in this post. For all I care they can keep doing what they do. I am merely saying that they should be required to adhere to the same tax exemption requirements as all other groups. If their current behavior falls within the lines of 501c3 rules, then they can be tax exempt without doing anything different, but as far as my research indicates, very few churches would meet these requirements. If they don’t wish to alter their behavior, then that is fine as well, but they should not be considered tax exempt.
Please explain to me what part of that seems unfair to you.
E) “I am also an accountant by profession, and can tell you that you are wrong to assume that the administrative structure of and accounting for the funds donated to the Red Cross is in any way similar to that of a church.”
I could not possibly agree more. The entire reason I brought up the Red Cross was to show how dramatically different their model is than that of a Church. The fact that the Red Cross runs its operation on approximately 9% of its budget, dedicating 91% directly to charitable causes, leads me to the conclusion that they are a well managed, and well administered organization that budgets their money in such a way that charitable deeds are given the utmost priority. The fact that an average church dedicates 75% of its budget to running itself, a further 16% to proselytizing, leaving charity to come out of the remainder, leads me to the conclusion that Churches are either 1: Mismanaged beyond any excuse, or 2: Run and budgeted in such a way that charitable expenditure is far from the top priority: which calls into serious question the idea that all churches should be granted tax exemption by merit of being a Church.
You are the bookkeeper for a Church, so you tell me. What is the justification for this discrepancy? Why can the Red Cross run on 9%, and the average mid-sized church requires 75%? What was the last ornament of the faith you were asked to budget above clean beds and hot meals? What was the last artifact, trapping, or piece of pageantry, apparently indispensible to the Church experience, that was so much more important than however many flu vaccines that same money would have purchased? Did you even bat an eye last time you had $500 extra and added it to the budget box marked “stained glass window” rather than the one marked “soup kitchen”?
I am not saying your group isn’t entitled to nice facilities in which to conduct their business and services. You are allowed the dignity of a little indulgence now and then, but walk into the ceremonial chamber of a regular mid-sized church and tell me that indulgence isn’t the FIRST thing that springs to mind. Tell me that your robes and tinctures, and goblets, and candelabras, and vaulted ceilings, and stained glass windows, and steeples, and sound systems, and tapestries are necessary to the operation of your charitable cause, and not merely ceremonial jewelry.
All of it purchased without paying sales or property tax.
Look, you don’t HAVE to spend that money on the sick and starving. You are perfectly welcome to buy all goodies you want, have the nicest parsonage you can afford, proselytize to your heart’s content, but if you do then please lay down tax exempt status and leave those benefits for those who will spend every spare penny they have on the community.
What part of that is unfair to you?
F) “I can testify that my local congregation donates 10s of thousands of hours annually to its own needy as well as to others in the community.”
Are you trying to make the case that yes, the budget model of a Church might not look that charitable, but that ought to be overlooked because of all of the volunteer hours you’ve accrued? It’s starting to feel a little unfair, bringing up the Red Cross, but they generate absolutely massive amounts of volunteer labor AND spend their money right.
Let’s imagine for a moment a Red Cross, or St. Jude representative saying, “Look, we spent about 75% of your money on ourselves, well not just ourselves, but generally running the operation. We spent another 15% or so promoting our group in 3rd world countries, and only spent about 10% or so on the kids with cancer and the blood drives. Now now, look on the bright side, we did get a LOT of volunteer work done!”
We wouldn’t accept that for an instant. The public outcry would be deafening. Your offering of volunteerism doesn’t impress me. That’s not to say all of those hours of volunteer work aren’t good and worth promoting, but that it doesn’t satisfy me as a good excuse for why you can’t do both, volunteer AND spend your money in a defensible way.
In conclusion, let me try to say this without being too insulting, it is no mystery to me why you are pleased with the current arrangement and see no problem needing to be corrected. In this discussion you represent the party which is a permitted automatic tax exemption while being allowed to amass gargantuan amounts of wealth and power in terms of Money, Property, and Political Influence (over, what did you say, some 12 million members) on a global scale. You are allowed to do this without having to qualify for exemption as any other organization would, without having to follow the same rules any other organization would, and with almost absolute secrecy since, as a Church, yours is the only class of 501c3 not required to make its financial records public. Furthermore, Churches operate under virtual immunity from any audit or repercussion even if they were proven to have broken those few rules they are expected to adhere to.
Again, I am in no way surprised that you like things just the way they are.
However, to those of us that do not think Churches are an inherent community service merely by warrant of being a Church, all we see is an egregious abuse of the terms “charity” and “non-profit”, hundreds of billions of dollars in a religious tax shelter, a slight transgression against the 1st Amendment, and a direct transgression against the social contract.
Of course all of this can be cleared up and made right by simply removing the religious enumeration from 501c3. Have a Church be considered profit or non-profit, tax paying or tax exempt, based on what that Church does and how that church is structured, requiring them to apply and follow the same non-profit rules as all other groups. If not, they are not disbanded; they are merely taxed the same way as the entertainment companies and/or activist groups that they much more closely resemble. Have Churches judged independently, not granted blanket exemption as a class. Those Churches that are genuinely charitable have nothing to fear. Those churches that maybe don’t quite prioritize their money like they should will have to shape up, and those churches that are blatantly businesses will start paying taxes.
Please, I beg of you, explain to me what part of that you think is unfair.
First, I need to point out that you characterize me in a way you shouldn’t. I am not a representative of my church. I am only representing my own opinions as a member. Nor am I an accountant for my church. I am a ward clerk, which is a completely different thing and I only identified myself to that extent to demonstrate that I have an informed opinion on what the members of my local ward contribute in tithes and offerings. It would be just as false to characterize the shift manager of a local McDonalds as an accountant for the McDonalds Corporation.
On to the arguments:
A) You deliberately ignored my entire premise here and countered with a fallacious argument. What it says on the IRS website is immaterial. The IRS only implements the code and so it is not the proper source to reference when seeking to discern the intent of the law, as I was doing. I cited the proper source in my previous post, 26 USC § 501(c)(3), which identifies an exempt “religious” category separate from “charitable”.
Furthermore, “all churches are tax exempt under 501c3” and “all charities are tax exempt under 501c3” does not distribute to “all churches are charities”. This is a syllogistic fallacy of the undistributed middle. Your statement was not justified, it was fallacious, and my comment was not disingenuous if you pay proper attention to what I actually said.
I was not objecting to churches being catagorized charitable organizations. I was pointing out that charitable purpose is not necessary to obtain the exemption, only religious purpose. The distinction is significant. It points to the intent of Congress when it wrote the code, to exempt both religious and charitable organizations on their own merits without creating some comparative test that religious entities have to meet.
B) I can’t discern what you are implying here, whether it is my analysis that is bogus, or Chief Justice Warren Burger’s. I am citing Supreme Court case law in context. You seem to be dismissing it out of hand, which seems unwarranted.
“The very fact that there is a separate category of tax law, set aside just for Churches apart from all other groups, is a transgression.” Argue in circles much? You argued before that churches were charitable organizations. I guess my argument is fine, as long as it backs up yours. Regardless, I understand your line of reasoning but think it is overly simplistic to equate seperation and invisibility. Read the rest of the Supreme Court decision I cited.
D) “As far as my research indicates, very few churches would meet these requirements.”
What research?
“What part of that is unfair to you?”
That it was never the intent of Congress to create some comparative test that churches have to meet.
E) Again, whether or not it is deliberate, you misinterpret my point. I am saying that the accounting for the Red Cross and the accounting for a church are different. You cannot compare their operating costs because the operating cost figures are not derived in the same way. Your comparison to the Red Cross is a false analogy. Consider, for example, that the Red Cross is granted funds by major world governments.
You also start getting into your pageantry argument again, which is just you on a soapbox spouting opinions, which, frankly, are insulting and unworthy of reasoned response. I ignored it the first time, and only mention it now because you reiterated it.
F) I gave you some round numbers on volunteerism in my church. You offer nothing on the Red Cross or any other church. Get some facts and we can discuss their significance. The same goes for your rant about “virtual immunity from any audit”. Get some examples.
“Again, I am in no way surprised that you like things just the way they are.”
Here you resort to a blatant ad hominem attack, the last recourse of the fallacious arguer. I like things the way they are because they are in line with the intent of the law. Which is why I choose to respectfully argue with you instead of ignore you. Please show the same courtesy.
“However, to those of us…”
Oh, wait, the argumentum ad populum. What was I thinking? Others agree with you? Let me ignore facts and history, forget what I said before.
Because you are arguing for a change in the way that churches are taxed, you have the burden of proof that the current system is inappropriate. You may have some valid points in your argument, but you mix them with biased opinions, overgeneralizations and a lack of facts.
BTW, Megalithic? geez….you obviously haven’t attended a LDS church…
1A) Ok, let’s go again. First, allow me to make a blanket statement that responds to many things you said. This is point 1A for future reference, because I will come back to it.
If your stance is that the law treats Churches differently than other 501c3s, obviously I agree. Of course the law treats Churches differently. If it didn’t, then this post wouldn’t exist. I am arguing that that differential treatment is a violation of the 1 st amendment, and the social contract, and should be altered.
A) “I am not a representative of my church. I am only representing my own opinions as a member. Nor am I an accountant for my church. I am a ward clerk.”
Fair enough. I did not understand the distinction.
B) “What it says on the IRS website is immaterial… The distinction is significant. It points to the intent of Congress when it wrote the code.”
I suspect that the argument “What your published material says is immaterial” would not go over very well to the IRS as a defense during an audit, but you are the trained professional in this field, so I will take your word on the matter. If you insist that the IRS verbage is irrelevant, and that this special treatment of Churches is the intent of Congress, then please refer to point 1A.
C) “all churches are tax exempt under 501c3” and “all charities are tax exempt under 501c3” does not distribute to “all churches are charities”
Somehow you have turned the assumption that an item listed under a heading is described by that heading, into a fallacy. I suppose there may be some informal fallacy in my assumption that the IRS listing Churches under the heading “charities and non-profits”, meant that the IRS considers Churches as charities and non-profits. Of course if we are dismissing what the IRS material says, then I guess my uninformed reliance on their material, and any resulting fallacy, is now irrelevant.
D) “I was not objecting to churches being categorized charitable organizations.”
Unless, apparently, categorizing them that way means holding them to inconvenient standards. In that case you seem ready to explain why any kind of comparative standard should be rejected.
E) “I can’t discern what you are implying here, whether it is my analysis that is bogus, or Chief Justice Warren Burger’s. I am citing Supreme Court case law in context. You seem to be dismissing it out of hand, which seems unwarranted.”
I am not dismissing the ruling out of hand, I am dismissing it…thoughtfully. But yes I am dismissing it. My point stands, I think, solidly at face value, prima facie. To legislate special categories of law that apply only to Churches, not because they are charities (as you pointed out), and not because they meet some comparative standard (as you pointed out) but merely by principle of being a Church, is clearly a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 1 st amendment. And whether by misunderstanding of the IRS, or by deliberate misrepresentation, to stick these tax shelters, which climb to around a hundred billion dollars annually, in with the rest of the charitable non-profits is to imply, to front, to at least pretend, that the reason for this tax exemption is similar to, if not the same as, the reason for the tax exemption of other organizations appearing in the same list, which clearly churches don’t live up to.
F) “The very fact that there is a separate category of tax law, set aside just for Churches apart from all other groups, is a transgression.” Argue in circles much? You argued before that churches were charitable organizations.”
I have argued no such thing. If I thought Churches were charities we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I have argued that Churches OUGHT to be treated as charities for the purposes of determining tax exemption, and held to the same standards as other charities. I understand, all too well, that Churches ARE NOT charities, and are treated differently under the law. Please refer to 1A.
G) “What research?”
I suppose this is what I get for not citing my sources at the bottom of the blog. I am terrible about that and apologize. Please refer to the sources below (in parentheses I list what information I got from this source):
IRS.GOV(Churches listed as Charities/Non-Profits, and documentation of the special rules that apply only to Churches, as well as the standards to which other 501c3s are held.)
http://news.yahoo.com/churches-political-u-irs-stays-quiet-180223433.html?_esi=1 (Size of church tax exemptions, virtual church immunity to penalty for non-compliance with 501c3 rules)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4
(Secular source reporting typical spending patterns of United States Churches, figures for Red Cross spending)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cbg/2000/janfeb/10.70.html
(Christian source reporting typical spending patterns of United States Churches)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_church#Organization_and_structure (the reason I referred to the LDS church as Megalithic.)
H) “”What part of that is unfair to you?”-That it was never the intent of Congress to create some comparative test that churches have to meet.”
Refer to 1A
I) “Your comparison to the Red Cross is a false analogy.”
I agree that, in reality, the analogy is false. One is a proper charity and the other is not. The analogy was meat to highlight what a proper charitable organization is, and therefore all of the things that the average Church is not. Again if you are arguing that Churches are not charities in the technical sense, and should not be held to that standard, then I cede this point, but refer you back to 1A.
J) “You also start getting into your pageantry argument again, which is just you on a soapbox spouting opinions.”
Whether or not churches spend a stupendous amount of money on items and facilities that any reasonable observer would consider “ornamental” is not a matter of opinion. That is a bare fact. And the kind of things a tax-exempt organization spends its money on is absolutely material to this discussion. How can you possibly imply that the spending habits of a Tax-Exempt organization aren’t relevant in a discussion about who gets tax-exempt status? My criticism, that pageantry is given priority to charity, would be a completely valid criticism if applied to ANY OTHER type of 501c3. Do you disagree? Of course you are of the opinion that Churches should not be treated like other 501c3s, somehow invalidating my criticism of their spending habits, and therefore I refer you back to 1A.
K) “Here you resort to a blatant ad hominem attack, the last recourse of the fallacious arguer.”
We are not discussing whether or not Churches are tax exempt as a matter of fact. The law is clear, and they are. If that were the discussion then of course questioning your objectivity would be irrelevant. This is a discussion of what the law OUGHT to be, in which case how we FEEL, and what values we grant priority, are of direct interest, and therefore, where you stand in this argument, and the objectivity of that position, is relevant.
Let’s look at the circumstance. The current state of law provides your position every possible benefit with no cost of compromise or concession. It is my assertion, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, that if you were not on the benefiting end of this arrangement, and rather an objective outside observer, or (heaven forbid) actually on the compromising end of the deal, that you would be less satisfied with the current state of law. Now I acknowledge that I am not objective either, religion turns my stomach, but even when I stand aside, and discard that disgust, it is plain as day that regardless of my personal views, the current state of law is a violation of the 1 st amendment. Even if I place myself in the shoes of the person who stands to gain every benefit, it does not alter the fact that this is a violation, and that this violation is either surreptitiously disguised, or actively protected.
SO….in conclusion my case is this, stripped down to the barest elements:
1: Special laws exist for the benefit of Churches which are based not on independent criteria (as you pointed out: not on charity and no on a comparative standard) but solely on the grounds of “churchhood”. This is a clear violation of the 1 st Amendment.
2: This violation is tolerated/ignored due to a blanket presumption that Churches will act in a similar fashion in their communities to other tax exempt non-profits. However both empirical data and simple informal observation clearly indicates that they do not. This is a violation of the social contract.
3: These violations may be tolerable if the consequences were only minor, however these tax exemptions total nearly 100 billion dollars annually, Churches heavily influence politics despite the requirement that they refrain from it as much as possible, and Churches amass staggering amounts of wealth and power while being subsidized in this endeavor by the billions in taxes they don’t have to pay. Therefore this violation is too egregious to tolerate.
4: The organization (IRS) meant to police these violations, due to various law-suits, restrictions, and interest groups, has been neutered of virtually all ability to check the rampant abuse.
5: Given all of the above as true, it is only reasonable that Churches have their blanket Tax Exempt Status revoked, and be required to qualify and maintain that status independently in the same fashion as any other 501c3.
6: Under my proposed system all earnestly charitable Churches may continue to function as they are, all churches that exist in a middling ground would be forced to restructure in a more charitable fashion (which most well intentioned Christians would agree is probably a good thing), and those Churches that are not charitable in nature, and elect not to change, may continue to operate as they are, but must pay taxes while doing so. This system is fair to all involved and certainly to the betterment of both charity and state budgets.
Please sir, I ask again, not what part of that is illegal, not what part of that doesn’t meet the intent of Congress, but what part do you find unfair?
Lambast away for my misuse of megalithic. Yes I meant MONOlithic. Bone-headed repeat offense on my part. Something was tickling the back of my brain telling me that word didn’t look right, but sometimes I get rolling ya know.
Now as to whether or not your church is monolithic, c’mon there’s no argument there. There is no pretending the LDS church is some small time, community based, humble organization of quiet worship and charity. Now you can, of course, make a case that your church isn’t AS absurdly bloated, wealthy, and top heavy as the Catholic Church, but that is hardly a defense.
Since we are talking about tax exemption based on a presumably charitable nature, it is perfectly valid to contemplate the consistency of a charitable institution being so powerful and wealthy in treasures and worldly goods. Contrasting the palatial temples the LDS owns with the large, although obviously utilitarian, office complexes of other large charitable organizations, says volumes about how your church prioritizes its wealth. You don’t seem willing to answer that
charge.
Now you seem to have a terribly inconsistent relationship with the charitable nature of churches. You seem happy to concede the charitable presumption on one hand, and then all to ready to explain the charitable mandate away with the other hand.
As best as I can determine your position is that Churches should be viewed with the same kind of positive regard and generous allowances of law that we grant to charitable groups, but not considered charitable in the sense that they actually have to BE charitable to keep their positive regard. They should have all of the benefits, but have to live up to none of the expectations.
Except you also seem to be making the side-case that Churches are not charitable, and a presumption of a charitable nature is not in any way a factor in their tax exempt status, and that their tax exempt status really is granted just by merit of being a church, which leaves me reeling at the total disregard for the 1st amendment.
I am familiar with the Lemon Test. Granting a Church tax exemption NOT because it’s charitable, NOT because it does the community any relative good (comparative standard), but for no reason other than it’s religious affiliation and function, does NOT pass the Lemon test AT ALL. If you are granting tax exemption based solely on the religious purpose of the group, then obviously that’s not secular. To grant all churches automatic tax exemption, up to about 100 billion extra dollars in their coffers a year, CLEARLY advances religion. And creating a special segment of law specifically for churches is, obviously, entangling the government and religion. Excessively? Maybe we could debate that, but it certainly entangles the two in a way that is beneficial to religion when religion could just as easily be considered a non-factor in tax law.
Tax exemption dramatically fails the first two prong of the Lemon Test, and also fails the third, although not as dramatically.
Look, I feel I have been utterly consistent and fair since my opening remarks. Having a reasonable stance that is sound legally and well as philosophically. So far, I have difficulty figuring out exactly what you stance is, you seem to be doing a lot of twisting and turning in the wind.
Are churches charitable or aren’t they? Should they be expected to be or shouldn’t they? If we don’t expect them to be charitable then what is the SECULAR reason for not making them pay taxes? Does the categorizing of Churches alongside explicitly non-profit charities imply that churches should serve a similar function or doesn’t it? Just how big, powerful, wealthy, and profitable does a group have to become before we can both agree making them tax exempt is inappropriate? Would you accept the same kind of behavior from ANY OTHER kind of tax exempt group? If not then what SECULAR reason is there to place different expectations on Churches? Do expensive ornaments and items of pageantry tell us anything about an organization’s priorities?
Unless I’ve totally overlooked some major section of your remarks, you seem to be either avoiding these questions, or giving vague and inconsistent answers. Of course it’s been a long conversation and I could have just not pieced it together, which is why I am giving you this opportunity to answer each of these questions firmly. Look, I’ll extend the same courtesy to you.
No they aren’t. Yes they should be. There isn’t one. Yes it does. Anything beyond the local level needs to come under close scrutiny of how they spend their money if they expect to be tax exempt. I wouldn’t. There isn’t one. Of course they do.
“Joseph Stalin campaigned for the disenfranchisement of churches and we know how that turned out.”
Paying taxes is not disenfranchisement….it’s enfranchisement. NOT paying taxes is much closer to disenfranchisement. If paying taxes is disenfranchisement then we’d all be disenfranchised. I’m afraid I don’t know what you talking about.
You rely heavily on hyperbole to bolster a weak argument.
LDS temples are not palatial by any means and the local meetinghouses are modest to a fault. Maybe you should do some factchecking about the size of the temples before you opine about their luxury. Additionally, a centrally organized church allows it to take advantage of economies of scale. Size is not a negative when it makes your charitable effort and your proselytizing more effective.
As to your argument about taxes, I have now cited 2 Supreme Court rulings to back my point of view (that your proposal violates the first amendment) to which you have no rebuttal other than your opinion. The fact is that your argument only stands if you only speak of establishment and ignore free exercise.
But to answer your questions:
“Tax exemption dramatically fails the first two prong of the Lemon Test, and also fails the third, although not as dramatically.”
You are applying the Lemon test incorrectly. Failing the Lemon test demonstrates an unconstitutional infringement on free exercise, not a violation of establishment.
“Are churches charitable or aren’t they?”
Churches are by definition charitable. Charity is not about money, only a great fool would think so, and you are not a great fool.
“Should they be expected to be or shouldn’t they?”
Of course they should.
“If we don’t expect them to be charitable then what is the SECULAR reason for not making them pay taxes?”
I don’t agree with that first thing, but regardless, free exercise stands as a secular concept.
“Does the categorizing of Churches alongside explicitly non-profit charities imply that churches should serve a similar function or doesn’t it?”
Where do you get the balls to say they don’t serve a charitable function. It is the policy of my church for members in need to request assistance from the church before applying for government assistance. So in many cases, the church replaces entitlement programs entirely. You should also do some research on how much aid my church provided after the earthquake in Haiti and the tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan, just as examples. There were relief supplies from the LDS church on the very first airplane to land in Haiti after the earthquake.
I told you before, you CANNOT compare any church to the Red Cross. For example, the Red Cross does not normally build facilities from which to run their blood drives. They usually use GASP!…. churches. Free of charge. And that donated space does not show up on either parties books. Hmmm… maybe I had a point when I said I knew something about accounting that you were not grasping.
“Just how big, powerful, wealthy, and profitable does a group have to become before we can both agree making them tax exempt is inappropriate?”
Ah, now you introduce a brand new point to the argument, one that you implied before, but didn’t state explicitly. Profit motive. Churches are BY DEFINITION non-profits. Where a church does business, it is treated as any other business, as it should be.
“Would you accept the same kind of behavior from ANY OTHER kind of tax exempt group?”
This is fallacious. You are begging the question. You first have to demonstrate that they are not charitable, which is ludicrous.
“If not then what SECULAR reason is there to place different expectations on Churches?”
Churches act as shelters, feed and clothe the hungry and naked, assist families paying rent, utilities, car payments, and medical expenses, and operate as ad hoc community centers. They also operate orphanages, schools and medical centers. You have also REPEATEDLY ignored my comments about the massive amount of volunteerism that is engendered by churches. Time is money, and all of that time goes back to the people.
“Do expensive ornaments and items of pageantry tell us anything about an organization’s priorities?”
They might if they were not donated. Regardless, since churches are also recruiting organizations, ornamentation has its place.
All of those answers are pretty straightforward, and all things I have already said.
You can also keep drumming on the 100 billion dollars, but since I read last week that the estimate is 5 billion dollars that the IRS has sent out just in fraudulent individual tax returns this year, I am not impressed with the number, Cutting back on just one of the foreign wars that our secular government is currently engaged in would save 10 times that much.
“Paying taxes is not disenfranchisement…”
Paying taxes on tithing is disenfranchisement. It is disincentive, would lead a a reduction in tithes and would only serve to increase the amount going to operating costs of churches.
One final question for you. What do you believe that free exercise means? I believe it includes freedom to spend donated tithes without answering to government lackeys.
Having been to Salt Lake City several times, and the Temple on Oahu (Hawaii) and other temples (San Diego etc) I can vouch for the multimillion dollar opulence therein. There’s nothing humble about them. SLC even has made it into a tourist attraction with stories of Joseph Smith’s life, a library and several other buildings for the advancement of the LDS religion.
If they are classified charity, I totally agree that they need to operate as one. Not just “we take care of our own”. That’s holding people hostage to religion. “If you join us, we’ll take care of you”. That’s incidentally how the aid in foreign countries work too. “We’ll help you, all you have to do is believe (and tithe) to OUR god”.
Having a sort of “charitable test” would be great. Let’s say everyone applying for charitable status needs to show full disclosure of the books and evidence of at least 51% of the incoming money is going out in a charitable way and NOT held hostage to beliefs or adherence to certain “moral” codes.
Open the books and prove that at least the simple majority is for charity. That’s all. Then you can deduct travels for missions, volunteer organization and all that. That way you, as a church/charitable org, will get all the benefits of tax deduction for the actual charity, and pay your fair share for the rest.
I think the overall point here is that this religious concert: (http://lindseyslifeisaverage.blogspot.com/2011/12/hillsong-concert-november-20-2011-our.html) looks more like this: (http://wall.alphacoders.com/big.php?i=308369) than this: (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6185) and WHEN it looks that way, maybe there should be a right to check in to the numbers and adjust the status accordingly. Without the right to audit, then those who ARE tax-avoiding can be charged as such.
Amen, Hensatri. When I noticed how much money LDS was spending on their own political agendas, it hit home that churches clearly aren’t charitable institutions and sickened me that our taxes are paying for them. Scientology, which makes money hand over fist, getting this tax relief just hammered the point home for me.
It is absurd that from the giant churches to the small churches, and the televangelists begging “seed money” from people who can’t afford to give it- there are no safeguards in place to see where the money is going. It seems indefensible to me, especially in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate.
I am curious if Mr. Miller would agree that “Televangelists” deserve the same tax considerations as his church. Also, where do the large sums of money his and other churches give to political actions (such as Prop 8) fall? Is that charitable, or a necessary cost of running churches? I don’t have an issue with them donating to whatever cause they believe in, I just don’t want to fund it.
I can’t speak to any other, but my church have $0 in support of Prop 8. Even if it did, it would not be tax exempt by law. And even if many individuals in my church supported it, some, like myself did not.
The idea that you somehow fund an organization that is tax exempt is ludicrous on the face of it. You no more fund my church than I find the ACLU when it defends NAMBLA in court. Tax exemptions make an organization more viable by encouraging contribution, not creating funding.
Tax exemption is a form of subsidy. It’s not direct funding, but it is certainly indirect.
Lets say that the federal Government allowed a green energy plant to be constructed and operate tax free for the first 6 years or order to help it be more viable. Are you saying we would not call that a form of public funding, a form of subsidy? Of course we would.
The very purpose of of regulations on tax exempt organizations is to ensure that if the public is giving a financial break to a group, that the group will honor the goodwill of the general populace and not act in a partisan way or for profit way.
Again, Churches remain exempt from almost all of the normal non-profit regulations for no discernible secular reason whatsoever. They rake in obscene profit, regularly act in a partisan way, and aren’t required to either qualify properly for tax exemption or make their financial records public.
I cannot hope to win an argument with a mind closed by prejudice. I would be just as valud to ask for what secular reason the ASCPA is given tax exemption, if I believed that animals serve no purpose other than food. Let alone PETA, who’s purely philosophical positions don’t even pretend to serve the common good of the citizenry.
You do everyone a disservice when you choose to completely ignore the very real secular value of love and charity. In my calling at church, I am currently assisting a family in dealing with a 36 year-old father of 3 who has just been taken off of all cancer therapy and will likely be gone in 2 months. My church supports me in these efforts that cost the taxpayer mothing put of pocket and save the government real dollars of state sponsored counseling for him and his family. In addition, we will continue to support his wife and children when he is gone, for as long as they have need and beyond.
If you still cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the value of love and charity, my church emphasizes self-sufficiency first, with help from family and church and government assistance as a last resort. I have both been given that counsel and given it to others in my calling as a leader in the church. Is that a secular enough reason for you?
There is no constitutionally mandated separation of Animal Rights and state. However, i would have the exact same criticism if Animal rights groups were offered blanket tax exemption, special rules protecting the privacy of their records, and virtual immunity to audits based merely on the merit of calling themselves an animal rights group. My criticism is not selective, it would apply to any similar arrangement.
And again, as I said months ago, as I said in the article, and as I have explained in all possible clear and understandable language, love compassion and charity are fine, and I have utterly no problem whatsoever with a Church being tax exempt, I don’t even have a problem with a church being tax exempt AND acting religiously, as long as they qualify for and maintain the standards expected of all other 501c3s.
Tax exemption and special rules based solely on “churchood” is an obvious case of preference being paid to religion by law, which is unconstitutional and unfair.
The religious have a highly trained martyr-sense and like to pretend they are being picked on when in fact they are just being asked to follow the same rules as everyone else. You know your perspective is skewed when “please follow the same rules all the rest of us have to” starts to equal persecution.
Having been an atheist until the age of 28 who was raised by atheists allows me to call “bullshit” on your ad homonym attack on my motivations. I am not overcompensating in defense of childhood beliefs.
“Tax exemption and special rules based solely on “churchood” is an obvious case of preference being paid to religion by law, which is unconstitutional and unfair.”
Wrong. I said before, and you refuse to concede (hence my conclusion that you are prejudiced), the US Constitution provides for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Hence perfect justification for the exemption from scrutiny. If you can’t grasp that from its plain and simple language, then you reveal yourself as too biased for rational discussion.
It is well established that the role of government in regards to religion is to be blind to it, indifferent to it, to neither help nor hinder. That is the only way to meet both, yes both prongs of the constitutionally defined relationship, that is making no law respecting OR limiting religion’s establishment or exercise.
You seem incredibly eager to stand on the free exercise clause and ignore the establishment clause. By what possible definition of the language is granting a blanket presumed financial advantage to religion NOT promoting/respecting religion, a law that does which Congress shall not make, if you recall. If you don’t think that is advantageous and directly supportive, then I can’t imagine what your standard of advantage and support could be. I can think of loads of other groups that would happily be not respected in the same fashion.
Now my approach completely and totally complies with both prongs of the constitution. There are no restrictions placed on religion, they may continue to act exactly as they do, so their free exercise is not inhibited, but they are stripped of their blanket financial advantage, and asked to comply with the same rules as everyone else, which eliminates the special advantages afforded them.
Unless you are prepared to argue that tax exemption is necessary for proper religious worship, I cannot see what the problem is with my proposition.
Now, I am we’ll aware that there are laws that say otherwise, and legal precedent that disagrees with my point, and I can’t believe I have to repeat this again, but I disagree with those laws and precedents, ergo the entire purpose of this discussion.
And yes, I question your motives, because I am convinced they have clouded the clarity of your thought. I am virtually 100% certain that you would agree with all of the principles I’ve put forth if we were discussing similar circumstances surround any other breed of non-profit. If the same advantages paid to religion were paid to, say, environmental activist groups, I think you would be on my side, especially if he constitution explicitly forbade laws respecting establishment of activist groups.
But you aren’t on my side, cause you are willing to suspend what we would both agree to be right and fair under any other circumstance, because the preferential treatment is being granted to the group you are part of. I do not think that fact can be divorced from the position you hold, if you think it can be, then replace “religion” with “environmental group” and try and make the same case, I don’t think you can, because when its a demographic you aren’t part of, I bet your mind will work differently. Of course you can easily prove me wrong if you are willing to either accept the challenge, or explain why religion is so extra-special that it is above such petty expectations.
Again, only the most self-absorbed position can view being treated equally as being picked on.
You have a completely biased view of what establishment means. Support and encouragement are not establishment. Many government agencies support and encourage environmental conservation in forms such as tax breaks for green power companies. Would you argue that the government “established” Solyndra? The government did establish the National Park Service. It oversees, pays to support and can have you arrested for trespassing in a National park. The role of the government in an environmental conservation entity that it actually established is of a completely different nature than one it encourages and supports.
You also have a biased notion of what is equal. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that religious and non-profit institutions are somehow equatable. They are not and there is no precedence to imply that they should be.
Churches have and continue to take care of those in poverty, widows, orphans, etc., all activities that need support and encouragement from the people. As in “We the people.”
There may be some bad churches out there. But that is a problem of enforcement, not constitutionality.
You’ve marched out of non-profit entities and strait into businesses. Yes, the fed is in the habit of subsidizing start-up industries, as well as existing vital ones, as a form of investment (ideally). However, this conversation is not about business, it is about non-profit groups. The challenge was to try and argue that an activist group of some kind getting blanket tax exemption and protection from normal rules would be fair. And would a constitutional mandate forbidding congress to make a law respecting activist groups have any influence on your opinion?
You did not address a single point. You tried to answer one question by going completely out of scope, and to the rest you pretty much said “nuh uh!”, now please, I beg of you, equite yourself of my charge of polluted and skewed perspective by directly interfacing with the points and not swaying around them.
1: Is tax exemption necessary for free exercise?
2: Would a blanket financial advantage in any other context, for any other kind of non-profit group, be considered governmental endorsement?
3: Why not when it comes to a Church.
4:If we agree that a blanket tax advantage for establishments of Religion is a form of support/endorsement/privilege by Congress, then by what possible meaning of “respecting” is such a situation anything other than a law respecting an establishment of religion?
5: Please explain the mechanics of how being asked to adhere to standardize 501c3 non-profit rules would infringe religious liberty in any capacity whatsoever.
These are the salient questions that you outright refuse to answer despite multiple askings. I dare say I have done you the courtesy of directly interfacing with your questions and comments without, that I am aware of, obfuscating relevant points. The closest I have come to not addressing a point of yours is in not acknowledging a relevant difference between churches and other non-profits, but rather returning that point to you for further elaboration.
If you are not prepared to answer these questions, then I don’t know on what ground you stand, and I have no further use of you.
Now I don’t wish to be a hypocrite. If you feel there is some aspect of this issue I have ignored, I assure you it was not on purpose, and I will elaborate if you wish.