His organization still retains the potential to enjoy tax-exempt status — though he says he doesn’t want that.
I’m with Bro. Greg on that. So: Should faith groups that promote lies and violence be allowed their traditional tax exempt status (operating, as they do, as public charities)? And if not, is this a blanket rule, or should faith groups that remain out of politics still be eligible, and what would be the process for removing said status?
I am certain their are some "faith groups" that are not political BUT none of the major ones are! I am all for taxing them. Separation of church and state is no more!!
I have done that, reported the more egregious ones. But is everything political? If a faith group lobbies for, say, affordable housing, is that political? Is “political” strictly endorsing candidates?
I mean it in the narrowest sense of endorsing a candidate or a party. Telling your audience that Democrats are devils and baby-killers should be disqualifying.
Other nonprofits lobby for funding for good works (e.g., funding for housing, food, libraries, the arts) without endangering their exemption. They also engage in those good works without engaging in actions that violate prohibitions against discrimination or limiting the rights of others, again without losing their exemption. The "faith groups" cross those lines, supporting/opposing political candidates and political parties; actively working for discrimination against those who do not share their beliefs (e.g., limiting adoptions by LGBTQ+ people, Jewish people, and others); and working for limitation of the actions of all others who do not share their beliefs (e.g., outlawing abortion, birth control, mention of LGBTQ+ in schools).
They can engage in their attempts at that nonsense all day as guaranteed by free speech, but not as tax exempt bodies. Their tax exemption forces the rest of us to support their beliefs and actions by paying to generate the tax revenue they do not provide. Pretty sure forcing the rest of us into that position is an establishment of religion.
However, not all faith groups behave in that way. I agree with you when it involves some faith groups that promote discrimination and legislation that aligns with their bigotry.
Agreed. I reread my comment and see that I changed a couple of words (very important words!) when writing that sentence. I had intended that to read "There are faith groups that cross those lines...". Thanks for making me look again and correct!
Everything has become political, unfortunately. Feeding people & ensuring a living wage, caring for the sick (promoting healthcare for all), housing people (promoting affordable housing), caring for vulnerable people, protecting people from harm (addressing gun violence), promoting equity... things that are the cornerstone issues for some faith groups (& Jesus IMO) have become political. So where do we draw the line? Hypocrisy has lost it's attached shame. It seems people shouldn't get rich off of leading a church and a church shouldn't require anyone to align to a particular political party.
The amazing thing is that churches do not have to file form 990s. So Joel Osteen's church pulls in $100m/year but he doesn't need to report anything to the IRS and he doesn't.
I think there are problems with using just the term "politics." Sectarian electoral and party politics are one set of things, which I think quite appropriate to demand tax-exempt entities keep clear of. But the venerable Black church institution of Souls to the Polls? I don't think it inappropriate for pastors to exhort and congregations to facilitate participation in democratic systems, as such.
But there are other understandings of "political." Many people use to to designate topics they consider controversial, particularly if they dislike someone's views on it.
I nearly always use "political" to mean "pertaining to systems and institutions that help us to live in close proximity to each other without killing each other too much."
Ruling out either of those latter sorts of definition for faith communities strikes me as a poor idea, and it is clearly antithetical to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, to go by traditions and texts. I expect that addressing social conditions and their amelioration is integral to other faith traditions as well.
I am certain their are some "faith groups" that are not political BUT none of the major ones are! I am all for taxing them. Separation of church and state is no more!!
It certainly feels that way.
"Faith" groups that operate as political entities should be taxed. The IRS has a process for reporting such entities.
I have done that, reported the more egregious ones. But is everything political? If a faith group lobbies for, say, affordable housing, is that political? Is “political” strictly endorsing candidates?
I mean it in the narrowest sense of endorsing a candidate or a party. Telling your audience that Democrats are devils and baby-killers should be disqualifying.
I agree.
Other nonprofits lobby for funding for good works (e.g., funding for housing, food, libraries, the arts) without endangering their exemption. They also engage in those good works without engaging in actions that violate prohibitions against discrimination or limiting the rights of others, again without losing their exemption. The "faith groups" cross those lines, supporting/opposing political candidates and political parties; actively working for discrimination against those who do not share their beliefs (e.g., limiting adoptions by LGBTQ+ people, Jewish people, and others); and working for limitation of the actions of all others who do not share their beliefs (e.g., outlawing abortion, birth control, mention of LGBTQ+ in schools).
They can engage in their attempts at that nonsense all day as guaranteed by free speech, but not as tax exempt bodies. Their tax exemption forces the rest of us to support their beliefs and actions by paying to generate the tax revenue they do not provide. Pretty sure forcing the rest of us into that position is an establishment of religion.
What Sis. Ava said? Amen.
However, not all faith groups behave in that way. I agree with you when it involves some faith groups that promote discrimination and legislation that aligns with their bigotry.
Agreed. I reread my comment and see that I changed a couple of words (very important words!) when writing that sentence. I had intended that to read "There are faith groups that cross those lines...". Thanks for making me look again and correct!
Everything has become political, unfortunately. Feeding people & ensuring a living wage, caring for the sick (promoting healthcare for all), housing people (promoting affordable housing), caring for vulnerable people, protecting people from harm (addressing gun violence), promoting equity... things that are the cornerstone issues for some faith groups (& Jesus IMO) have become political. So where do we draw the line? Hypocrisy has lost it's attached shame. It seems people shouldn't get rich off of leading a church and a church shouldn't require anyone to align to a particular political party.
The amazing thing is that churches do not have to file form 990s. So Joel Osteen's church pulls in $100m/year but he doesn't need to report anything to the IRS and he doesn't.
He surely doesn't because if he did? He'd have to start reporting all that cash he stashes in the wall of his organization: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plumber-discovered-money-wall-joel-osteens-lakewood-church-gets-20000-rcna8010
I think there are problems with using just the term "politics." Sectarian electoral and party politics are one set of things, which I think quite appropriate to demand tax-exempt entities keep clear of. But the venerable Black church institution of Souls to the Polls? I don't think it inappropriate for pastors to exhort and congregations to facilitate participation in democratic systems, as such.
But there are other understandings of "political." Many people use to to designate topics they consider controversial, particularly if they dislike someone's views on it.
I nearly always use "political" to mean "pertaining to systems and institutions that help us to live in close proximity to each other without killing each other too much."
Ruling out either of those latter sorts of definition for faith communities strikes me as a poor idea, and it is clearly antithetical to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, to go by traditions and texts. I expect that addressing social conditions and their amelioration is integral to other faith traditions as well.