Should churches that are politically active lose tax exempt status?

Air America!! Was that not owned by the CIA

http://www.dcothai.com/product_info.php?products_id=382

 

So your real problem is not with tax exempt organizations equally, your problem is with churches and religion or maybe just with those organizations that disagree with your views. Can't say I am surprised either way.

 

It has nothing to do with my opinion, churches have different regulations and laws to follow. I do think that it is wise to have that differentiation though (the nature of the influence exerted by churches is substantially different than any other non-profit).

 

How so?

Personally, I think it should just be a level playing field when the taxpayer's money is involved. Same tax benefits, same rules. And, from what I can tell under the tax law, churches have to follow the same 501(c)(3) rules as any other non-profit organization that falls under that code. Best as I can tell, that code is apparently one of the more restrictive for non-profits in regards to lobbying already. If anything some of the other non-profit codes should be tightened up to be as restrictive as the 501(c)(3).

 

They exert a psychological power over believers (as demonstrated in the Catholic priest sexual abuse cases and the associated cover-ups, parents were told not to report these incidents and they obeyed, that is huge psychological power well beyond anything found in any other nonprofit).

Those do appear to be stricter rules (and they should and will remain strict).
People are getting serious about this, look here:
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/

 

Check out this letter read in all LDS churches in CA
"
SALT LAKE CITY 30 June 2008 The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:
Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On
November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore
the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.
The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is
ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be
born within this bond of marriage.
A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church
will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may
become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to
assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to
preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
Style guide note: When reporting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please use the complete name of
the Church in the first reference. For more information on the use of the name of the Church, go to our online style guide.
"

 

Do I want non-profit churches influencing legislation? No. Do I want non-profit gay and lesbian groups influencing legislation? No. Do I want some vegetable eating non-profit organization influencing legislation? No. Do I want some white supremacist non-profit organization influencing legislation? No. Do I want some animal rights non-profit group influencing legislation? No. Do I want some global warming non-profit influencing legislation? No.

It is all the same thing to me. Don't use my money (via a tax break that keeps everyone elses taxes higher) to influence the political process. Simple. I don't care what the agenda is.

 

Having PETA telling vegetarians to vote for something is a lot different than a church telling believers to vote for something. When it comes from a church it has more weight. Remember parents did not turn in priests who sexually abused their kids because the church told them not to. PETA does not exercise that type of power over its members.

 

No it isn't different. It is a non-profit influencing legislation by using its standing to influence its members. If you consciously attempt to separate yourself from your agendas and bias, it becomes pretty obvious that it is the same thing.

 

The church claims to hold the truth from God. Other non-profits simply do not have that. Your course could lead to a theocracy.

 

The theocracy thing is a straw man. My way is MORE restrictive on religion than what is there now. The only difference is that I am saying no non-profit should influence legislation regardless if it is one whose agenda I support or not. I think that is the main difference between us.

 

Oh, if you are more restrictive to churches AND others (and it is strictly enforced in such a way that they permanently lose their status) I may go for that. But that would mean that the entire Catholic church or LDS church could lose its status based on a single incident.

 

That is exactly what I mean. I don't think any of them should be lobbying if they are getting a tax break.

I don't care if the Mormon church says that gay marriage is wrong any more than I care if PETA says meat processing plants are wrong. But neither should be proposing legislation or telling their members how to vote on legislation or sending out fliers about how to vote on legislation or having sermons or speeches on legislation.

It is one thing to say: "We believe this". It is another thing entirely to say: "You should vote like this".