Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The first amendment that the church has been ignoring by getting involved in education and politics? It is supposed to go both ways, you know.

People don't lose their rights to educate others or engage in politics simply because they come together to worship.

Section 501(c)3 says differently:

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

[Emphasis added -- Parks]

And the above-mentioned subsection (h):

(h) Expenditures by public charities to influence legislation

(1) General rule
In the case of an organization to which this subsection applies, exemption from taxation under subsection (a) shall be denied because a substantial part of the activities of such organization consists of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, but only if such organization normally—

(A) makes lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year, or

(B) makes grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year.

Both passages can be found here.

The lobbying allowances are actually very generous, but I'd bet my right arm that the Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention exceed them. I know for a fact that in the battle over Proposition 8 in California, the Mormons blew those limits away -- and preached voting positions from the pulpit, as did AME ministers in Los Angeles.

Yet they didn't lose their tax exemption.

Now, under your favorite President, Dubya, the IRS did threaten a church with removal of exempt status:

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."


On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church ... " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/...allsaints7

[Emphasis added -- Parks]

Bush might be a religious man, but the message is clearly to not to fuck with his political opportunities. Living in SoCal at the time, I was surprised, to say the least, by the silence of the small-government Republicans in the face of this obvious abuse of executive power ... but I think that point belongs in another thread, so I'll leave it at that.