Churches Want To Politic From Pulpit & Keep Tax Exempt Status. The Answer Should Be NO

[TheMastersNemesis]

If you want to endorse candidates and openly politic for them tax exempt status goes. Churches use the commons and are freeloaders. And separation of church and state is vital.

[yellerpup]

1. No is the only answer.

Keep religion out of politics.

[riqster]

2. Kick and Rec.

[RC]

3. But, but, but god is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence - that makes us a Christian Nation

[ileus]

4. No politics what-so-ever at my church.

We'll keep out tax exempt status.

[former9thward]

5. There are a lot of people who don't pay taxes and "use the commons."

Are they freeloaders too? It that your label for anyone who doesn't pay taxes?

[Fumesucker]

6. Corporations may be people my friend but churches aren't n/t

[former9thward]

8. Which does not answer the question.

Or even address it.

[Fumesucker]

9. Actually it does

You compared churches to people in your post.

I pointed out that churches are not people.

[former9thward]

13. I was wondering if everyone who does not pay taxes are freeloaders.

That is what the poster seemed to be saying. Yes, churches are not people. They are not dogs either. So what? Despite your earlier post if a church has a 501c(3) designation it is in fact a corporation by IRS rules.

More to the point of the OP. The IRS will never seriously look at this issue. The reason being is that there is no party in DC which will back them up. Both Republicans and Democrats use churches for political purposes. Both parties would come down on the IRS like a ton of bricks if they tried to do something about it.

[Fumesucker]

14. Young children aside, what individual does not pay taxes? n/t

[former9thward]

15. What church does not pay taxes?

If you are talking about income taxes many retired people and disabled people pay no income taxes. Many working people pay no income tax. In fact easily the majority of the adult population pays no income taxes. If you are talking about other taxes such as sales taxes churches pay those for anything they purchase. Also the people who go to church pay all these taxes.

[Fumesucker]

16. But the church is not the people as individuals

Church populations are also subject to change, individuals come and go.

I've been dunned enough times for church "gifts" and I don't even go to church, some churches actually have people going door to door around here trying to get things like PA systems, video projectors and even carpentry work and painting for free.

[truebluegreen]

35. Actually, I believe churches are exempt from sales tax.

[russspeakeasy]

7. Political, or not, their income should be taxed.

Or; show me some miracles.....right now !!

[theHandpuppet]

11. Miracles on demand?

I like that idea! Put up or pay up!

[russspeakeasy]

17. Exactly !

[theHandpuppet]

10. Which would mean, of course, they'd get a tax break...

... for actively promoting the anti-gay, anti-choice policies of their chosen RW nutbags. HELL NO.

[hrmjustin]

12. Churches are not freeloaders! I do agree that churches should not endorse from the pulpit.

[lawwolf]

18. Tax what?

The vast majority of churches don't produce anything that would be taxable to begin with. Property tax? What else? Donations to the church are gifts and people don't pay taxes on gifts. So if donations aren't taxed what else do most churches do that would be taxed? Sure, there are some mega churches that may have a book store or coffee shop in them, but those make up a minuscule percentage of churches.

If you really want to hurt the churches what you would need to do is get rid of the tax deduction that the congregation gets for their donations to the church. The church itself wouldn't pay taxes as the donations would still be gifts, but if the people didn't get tax deductions there are some that would not donate as much.

[branford]

24. Tax such gifts and say good-bye to soup kitchens, hospitals, community and youth centers, etc.

Th gift deductions encourage charity and support some of the most vulnerable among us. Eliminating them would have horrible consequences.

Also, it would be impossible to carve-out charitable deductions only to religious institutions. The First Amendment prohibits discriminating based on the content of one's views or because of religion. If the religious gifts become taxable, so will gifts to the WWF, Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, etc.

[dickthegrouch]

26. That's the price of politicking

They have a choice. Maintain the separation of church and State, keep their tax-free status.
Continue influencing political decisions and their taxes will fund the good works they do otherwise.

Most major denominations are obscenely wealthy and, just like the 1%, holding on to far more of it than is justifiable given current economic conditions.

[hrmjustin]

28. So if my church continues to influence political decisions on gay marriage then we should pay taxes?

Should we stop fighting for gay rights?

As for how much money they hold it is a matter for the membership to deal with. I would agree though that some of that money could be put to better use but that is a membership issue not a government issue.

[dickthegrouch]

30. FAR more was spent against us by the Catholics and Mormons

While there are positive exceptions to every negative trend, yes, I want all churches out of the business of politics.

They are private members clubs and they can decide whatever rules they damn well please within their club. They may not deny my right to enjoy equally all the benefits of marriage, or anything else.

Coercing their members to vote particular ways with threats of damnation or excommunication should be considered terrorist acts just like any bombing and should invite significant sanctions.

[hrmjustin]

32. I understand your anger but I have to disagree with you conclusions.

Churches have the right to participate in the political discussions in the nation.

[branford]

33. If you want religious organizations and individuals to be excluded from the political sphere,

you need to radically amend the First Amendment. With all due respect, good luck with that!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I bet Bull Connor wished he could have taxed all those meddlesome preachers that troubled him.

[Igel]

20. Strange. You want existing law, and demand that it exist.

Very strange. Most people don't demand what they have. It's unreasonable for me to demand tha a bag of peanuts appear on my desk right now because, well, there should be a bag of peanuts there. There's already one there. My wife would be wondering what happened to the old cerebrum if I did such a thing.

So: Churches cannot endorse candidates without coming under intense scrutiny by the IRS. They cannot campaign for candidates. That's long-standing law. Most churches abide by it, if you mess up once you'll probably be forgiven, but do it often or egregiously, wilfully, bye-bye 501(c)(3) status. There are persistent ways to skirt the law.

One way is to invite candidates to give speeches. You may invite the opposing candidates, but usually they know how the congregation is and say no. When Obama was invited to speak at a black church McCain knew better. You only have to speak at a limited number of churches--the news agencies report, so you may not have seen a candidate at your church but you know he's with you.

Another way that churches politic is to push GOTV drives. If you know that most of your congregation is conservative and push for them to vote after church, that's a kind of politicking. You sort of know how they'll vote. Except that in Ohio when they tried to restrict weekend voting the biggest objections came from black churches who did precisely that.

Another way is to push a specific issue. Your church pushes affordable health care for all as a basic human right demanded by Jesus and only one presidential candidate has that position, you've just de facto endorsed a candidate by pushing for policy without breaking the law. If you want to march against racial inequality and one candidate is against it and another favors equality, you've just all but endorsed that candidate.

These are legal. They do not endorse a candidate per se. Pushing for policy isn't endorsing a person. GOTV, unless you say, "Vote for Joe!" isn't endorsing a candidate. Inviting speakers is a public service, not endorsing a candidate--as long as you provide your pulpit to all contenders. Heck, even cracking jokes about a candidate isn't endorsing his opponent.


Churches pay income tax on income that is not derived from their primary purpose. They collect $10k one week from donations, it's tax deductible and they pay now tax. A megachurch has 10 baseball teams and opens a hotdog stand for the games, it's likely to be tax exempt--they're serving their population, although they should collect tax on outsiders who happen in. But if they open the hotdog stand for the games at a Little League team that they sponsor but which is open to all, it's taxable and they pay income tax on any profits.

If a church has a bookstore on its property next to the church--I've seen a couple like that in smaller towns--then the bookstore property can legally be made taxable under the Constitution and the church would have to pay property tax on it. There's no requirement that a state or county rezone it as taxable. This varies a bit.

[Bunnahabhain]

23. This an excellent post.

One that is sure to be ignored.

[UTUSN]

21. R#11 & K for, I wish I could Rec this a brazilian times!1 A local Fundie minister drives me MAD!1

He has had commercials running daily for years, harps on all the predictable wingnut scripts, especially how separation/church/state is not in the Constitution.

What he doesn't touch is how the Acts of the Apostles is a George BABBITT manual for marketing, yet also doubles down on PAYING TAXES (to Caesar) although there is NO shortage of exhortations for the Xtian outposts to PAY UP to Saul/Paul for his appearances.

[VADem1980]

22. Lots of things to tax them on-

1.) First, tax all the donations. Donations are not the same thing as gifts.

2.) Tax the property they hold, to include real estate, vehicles, etc.

3.) Make them pay sales tax on purchases they make

4.) Any organization that is "faith-based" loses 501(c) status.

*BOOM* problem solved. And hopefully we put out of business some right-wing fundie recruitment centers while we're at it

[branford]

25. Respectfully, the Constitution prohibits most of your suggestions.

Many of the posts in this thread already explain the illegality, impossibility or absurdity of many of your suggestions.

I would like to emphasize that you cannot treat a "faith-based" organization differently from a similarly situated secular organization with violating the First Amendment.

Congress can remove the benefits provided to organizations that qualify for 501(c)(3) status, but they unequivocally cannot carve-out only religious organizations. No liberal or conservative court would uphold such a statute, especially if such law even hinted at a preference for or against a particular viewpoint.

Additionally, regardless of your personal feelings, freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof, is a foundational concept in our republic and churches of all types are considered a public good. Liberals and conservative alike support unique benefits to these groups due to services they provide, whether charitable, educational or spiritual. You are free to advocate a dramatic change to our culture, but you might as well rage against the tide.

[dickthegrouch]

27. Constitution also prohibits the church from meddling in politics

But the, oh so righteous, church members don't pay attention to that, so why the hell should we not use every trick in the book to divest them of their privileges?

[hrmjustin]

29. It does not say that we can not be involved in the political life of this nation.

[branford]

31. The Constitution prohibits no such thing!

Religious individuals and organizations have as much right to their opinions and involvement in politics as any other citizen or group.

In America, we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[dickthegrouch]

34. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

To hear the fundamentalists tell it, marriage is an establishment of religion.

Would you prefer to give up all 1200+ federal rights associated with marriage to obtain the equality the constitution guarantees?

Actually since Marriage is now enshrined as an equal opportunity for same sex couples, we should be able to stop arguing about it. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that some damned churches will keep trying to demonize same-sex couples just as they have continued for 60 years to fight abortion.

I'll reiterate, they can demand whatever they damned well please of their members. The instant they impinge on anyone else, they've gone too far.

[branford]

37. You are certainly free to hold any opinions you wish,

but 220 years of constitutional jurisprudence clearly demonstrates that your beliefs do not comport with the constitutional protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Regardless of the social policies that either you or I would prefer, I would never give-up my natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution in order effect such policies. As there is absolutely no movement to amend or repeal the relevant provisions in the Constitution, our discussion is, at best, academic.

You can advocate your positions, religious individuals and organizations can advocate theirs, and the electoral process and the courts will determine who will ultimately prevail. Attempts to silence the opposition are doomed to failure in a free and open society.

[hrmjustin]

40. Churches have the right to their opinions according to the contstitution.

I wish and pray more were LGBT friendly and inclusive but they have the right to have a bigoted opinion.

Churches have the right to speak out on issues of the day. They do not have the right to endorse a candidate.

Do you think all houses of worship should be taxed or just churches?

[branford]

43. Small correction.

Churches certainly may endorse a political candidate, but they would forfeit their tax exemption. This would be true for any relevant non-profit, not just religious institutions.

[hrmjustin]

44. Yes that is true. They can do it but they will loose their tax exempt status.

[VADem1980]

36. The Constitution says it will not ESTABLISH a religion.

Religions are a business like any other. I would also argue that most progressives see little value in "spiritual" organizations. They are little more than Limbaugh recruitment centers!!!!

[branford]

38. There is more to the text than the establishment clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The second part is not just for show. Whether you agree or not, religious belief, involvement and expression have special protection under the Constitution.

I would also be very leery in claiming progressives see little value in "spiritual" organizations. Martin Luther King and his spiritual heirs, particularly in many minority communities, would take offense at even such a suggestion.

Even you subscribe to the absurd belief that most religious organizations are "Limbaugh recruitment centers," it would in no way impact the protection afforded them under the Constitution. Congress may disagree with certain speech or religious belief, but the law cannot legally give preference to, or discriminate against, unpopular religions or offensive speech.

[madrchsod]

42. yes there are a lot of progressive churches across america

the reason we don't hear about them is they actually practice what they preach without standing on the corner.

desmond tutu,martin luther king, and all the rest who have dedicated and those who have lost their lives to deliver the message that we are all one.

[dickthegrouch]

46. "establish A religion" ?

No, it doesn't.
There is no "a" in the phrase.

In the vernacular of circa 1776, an "establishment of religion" is ANY bedrock concept, or belief, or practice of all religions.

In terms of the State's recognition of marriage, that is purely a fiscally beneficial contract which may not be denied to me on the basis of a religious objection.

[madrchsod]

39. churches are freeloaders because they use the commons?

tax exempt status is revoked if the pastor is stupid enough to openly endorse from the pulpit.the vast majority of churches are not "freeloaders" and the commons are for everyone to use regardless of the ability to pay. i'll trust the guys who wrote why and how we can avoid a state religion.

[hrmjustin]

41. Do you include all houses of Worship in this or is it all about churches?

[Initech]

45. Mixing religion and politics is an extremely dangerous cocktail.

I do not want to live in a theocratic government. Fuck that!

[The Second Stone]

47. Remove all tax free status from all organizations with tax free status and give only deductions to

non-luxury charity work.

[B Calm]

48. The government should crack down on these tax evading SOB's!

[hrmjustin]

50. Are all churches tax evading SOB's.

Just remember the law is that they are not taxed. They are not evading anything.

[cbayer]

49. Yes, that's the law. The problem is IRS enforcement.