(August 31, 2012 at 9:17 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:08 pm)Gambit Wrote: If it is just, what is there to feel guilty about? Are you saying you are conflicted? I genuinely want to know; I'm not trying to get a rise.

Edit: Can someone who's not drunk articulate my thoughts for me here? I know what I wanted to ask there, I just can't seem to formulate it.

Well I would feel more conflicted if I actually tithed....have not given money to a Church since last year.

Thought in a way, yes. Especially for the poorer churches and those struggling to get by (my Church has had to borrow money for example). Now for the multimillion dollar churches, I say tax them 25% (a low tax rate). No reason a church should have that much money.

OK, that, I get. My girl is so tired to Catholicism for two main reasons.

1. She was brought up by a mother who believes she communes with spirits and has been told it is the only way.
2. When her family came to the U.S. from the Dominican Republic they had nothing, and the only people who cared was the local Catholic church. They fed them, clothed them and helped them integrate into the neighborhood. From what she tells me, that church struggled to get by, too.

There are many Churches that act basically as community centers. Those should not be taxed excessively (I think it would be wrong to ask other non-profits to pat taxes and leave the churches exempt...though I might lessen my Democratic Socialist ideals a bit since we aren't looked upon favorably in the US for our stance on taxes) because they are providing a service the local government either is in not in a position to fill or just don't want to do so.

Quote:Elections

Organizations described in section 501©(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[29] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501©(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or © have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

I doubt there is a church of any size which is not in violation of 501 © (3).

(August 31, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Elections

Organizations described in section 501©(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[29] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501©(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes....

I doubt there is a church of any size which is not in violation of 501 © (3).

And to put an even finer point on it, there is an organization here in the U.S. which is organizing and urging churches to wantonly violate these restrictions on them.

I'd say that a large measure of churches attempt to remain in compliance (and stick to urging people to vote, to register, to become informed voters, so-called "issues advocacy") and avoid that which is not allowed (advocating for or against a candidate up for election).

But as noted, there is a substantial number that feel it is their right to be politically active.

All though you might thinking their teachings are a waste of time, they do "benefit" the people. Some people are Christians and you can't change that, therefore it is a help to them and a technical non-profit, whether you think it is or not. . Of course not all churches you the money the right way. But all types of organizations, including secular ones have a few corrupt ones within their ranks. There is corruption within the government, companies, etc.

Just pointing that out.

(September 1, 2012 at 5:14 am)CBA222 Wrote: All though you might thinking their teachings are a waste of time, they do "benefit" the people. Some people are Christians and you can't change that, therefore it is a help to them and a technical non-profit, whether you think it is or not. . Of course not all churches you the money the right way. But all types of organizations, including secular ones have a few corrupt ones within their ranks. There is corruption within the government, companies, etc.

Just pointing that out.

Whether an organization is non-profit is not determined by whether they help people or not. Pharmaceutical companies help people by making drugs that save thousands of lives every day and yet no one is trying to label them as non-profit. And if the ministers are using the surplus money to line their own pockets, then no - that church is technically not a non-profit, whether you think it is or not. Just pointing that out.

Not all churches are corrupt. Ministers need to live to. As long as they aren't using it excessively(which most don't) it's okay.

(September 1, 2012 at 5:45 am)CBA222 Wrote: Not all churches are corrupt. Ministers need to live to. As long as they aren't using it excessively(which most don't) it's okay.

Corruption is irrelevant and as is excessive use. Helping people is not a good enough criteria for providing tax exemption, since, as we see, churches don't necessarily help people and pharmaceuticals do. So why do you think those institutions should be tax exempt?

Sorry I didn't get you. The church is providing a free service, there? It's a free service for Christians. Don't assume it doesn't help cause to some people it does.

(September 1, 2012 at 6:21 am)CBA222 Wrote: Sorry I didn't get you. The church is providing a free service, there? It's a free service for Christians. Don't assume it doesn't help cause to some people it does.

Like Genkaus said multiple times, whether an organisation helps people or not doesn't matter at all to their status as a non-profit. As far as the rules go, any of them violating the "no politics" rule should pay taxes.