Minnesota pastor Gus Booth is using his pulpit to promote candidates for political office, claiming that "God wants me to address the great moral issues of the day". Which is fine with me, even though I disagree with him on just about everything. He clearly wants to commit himself to crusading for his causes, even though (or because) he is an idiot.
How do I know that? Because he now wants to claim that he's being persecuted by the IRS and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, since they argue that such political activity is a violation of the rules governing his church's tax exemption. They are not saying he can't speak out against abortion or for his dangerously loony political candidates, they are saying he can't both speak out and demand the privilege of not paying taxes on his political headquarters. He doesn't get it.
I think that if he wants to fight a god-mandated war, he ought to expect to make a few sacrifices in his struggle. It's worth it, right?
The AU has put out a nice letter on the subject.
- Log in to post comments
Nuanced thought is rarely found in demented fuckwits.
Well, they're almost by definition stunted intellectually. They're perpetually stuck in "i wanna get what i want"-mode. NO amount of logic of reason will shake them from that.
Is he taking advice from Kent Hovind?
Maybe he should have taken advice from Jesus, who is said to have to told people to pay their taxes, but the subtlety of Booth's thinking may be beyond me.
It looks like it may be time for him to "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".
Yeah, if you're not black AND Democrat, you should not be endorsing political candidates from the pulpit.
Warroad Minnesota? How appropriate.
What about if you were just black?
In Chicago there was this big hoopla when a preacher bashed Clinton and praised Obamma. The preacher was temporarily removed but later restored to his parish. What do you want to be that the same thing will NOT happen here?
The IRS has been sending warnings to all of these religious folks when they step out of bounds. The problem is that the ones who want to fight tend to be the right-wingers.
freelunch said,
Not only that, but they tend to think they're beyond the law or something.
There seems to be a pattern with those a$$holes.
Not only that, but they tend to think they're beyond the law or something.
There seems to be a pattern with those a$$holes.
Because they are good at heart, see? That means, by inference, that all they do or want to do is good and just and right.
Its hard to take a persecution claim seriously when the supposed punishment is a tax on income /just like everyone else/.
Good heavens!
Do you atheists and rationalists realise it's Friday the 13th!
There could be some bad luck heading our way, God help us!
Thats one way to find out if God is really on your side, Fuck with the IRS.
Gotta love those snake handlers.
Actually, it's Thursday the 12th here. But, to answer your question: no.
By their definition, suspending someone's drivers license for a DUI would also be persecution.
On which planet? On Earth, we have left-wing churches CONSTANTLY endorsing left-wing political candidates and allowing them to promote themselves from the pulpit without so much as a peep from the left-wing groups that promote separation of church and state. Every time there's an election, AU targets right-wing churches and ONLY right-wing churches with their silly letter.
More seriously, this is mild compared to what religions get away with here in Australia. We do not enjoy the constitutional separation of church and state that the US has.
Most prominent is in schools. There are numerous religious schools that are 80% public funded, but are free to teach all religioius claptrap to kids they want.
The concept of seperation of church and state is something we need to learn more about.
Somehow, that usually turns out to happen whenever the month starts on a Sunday. Maybe there's a connection here...
Scott D
Too late - Catholic Priests have gotten there first!
Just wait until we've got to deal with churches that have been emboldened by gigantic government handouts throught the "faith based initiatives" ($250,000 for a new church roof in Texas?) We all know it's nearly impossible to turn off an entitlement and this is a huge one.
jsn is starting to sound like kenny, except replace unsupported ACLU claims with unsupported AU claims. Until he provides evidence that the AU only goes after right-wing churches and ignores left-wing churches, he should be ignored.
Does anyone have information on whether or how often the IRS has enforced the removal of the tax exemption, or if it's just an empty threat? I can imagine these getting help up in court for years until the church changes preachers and the case is dropped.
jsn @ 17:
Citation please. Claims without evidence are simply claims.
Ramases,
I'm mostly wondering how much effort you expended, if any, to get your Friday the 13th comment on the 13th post.
jsn bumbled,
Except in this case, the right-wing church targeted the AU.
Didn't read the silly letter, did you?
jsn-- after decades of Republicans playing footsie with right-wing fundamentalist and evangelical churches, you're claiming that it's really the left-wing churches that are getting away with political misbehaviour? Do you actually have any evidence for this? My bet is that you're just playing by the Rove rule: if your side has a weakness (Bush's military record, complete disregard for the threat of global warming, etc.), attack your opponent on that very point, even if it's actually a strength for them (Kerry's record, climatological science, etc.)?
Dennis N, #22
I was just going to post this: http://xkcd.com/285/
One person doing that (rather than 50 commenters) is probably the best response to most trolling.
I think jsn's probably following a simpler rightist strategy:
If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie, and lie again.
Well that's just plain stoopid. My suggestion is repeal all church tax exemptions, so none can claim persecution (and because it's the right thing to do).
JSN said:
"On which planet? On Earth, we have left-wing churches CONSTANTLY endorsing left-wing political candidates and allowing them to promote themselves from the pulpit without so much as a peep from the left-wing groups that promote separation of church and state. Every time there's an election, AU targets right-wing churches and ONLY right-wing churches with their silly letter."
Really, like whow?
I have an easy solution here: Don't make any church tax exempt.
Why should any church be tax exempt anyways?
Gotta love xkcd.
I like how the Preacher claims the AU intimidates churches, and then all the AU does is report them to the IRS. If they were concerned with intimidation, they were looking in the wrong direction; the IRS are the ones you don't wanna mess with. It seems they have the same distorted view that kenny and jsn have with the ACLU and AU are out to get them. Civil Liberties and Separation of Church and State, oh the horror!
Well that's just plain stoopid. My suggestion is repeal all church tax exemptions, so none can claim persecution (and because it's the right thing to do).
My thoughts exactly.
Except I feel most churches would probably lie about how much they take in.
Raymond said:
Because they'll all demand that their congregations block vote to scupper the electoral chances of any politician who even considers abolishing the exemption?
Follow the money!
I filed a complaint with the IRS and got a church, Spirit One Christian Center, investigated by the IRS for using church property for political reasons. The church also complained of being persecuted and claimed it's their First Amendment right to be tax-exempt.
It's just another case of Christians wanting special rights. I don't see newspapers and television stations demanding tax exemptions because they have "freedom of the press" in the Constitution.
Hehehe... Does that "whow" come with *JAZZ HANDS!* Steve? That's the way I read it at least, and it's probably the best way of dealing with the nutter.
In fact, from now on, I think whenever a right-wing nutbag opens his or her trap, we should just go "Whow! *JAZZ HANDS!*"
Sorry. It's one of those mornings.
Oh really? I'd like to see the "put up" or you to shut up.
IIRC, jsn has been more of a drive-by annoyance, and is less likely to engage in any, even irrational, dialogue.
It follows the logic of the "evolution wars," that free speech is subsidized speech.
Maybe "free" to them means that they oughtn't have to shell out any money to have an audience and to broadcast to them.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
(.)(.)
The tax code allows for tax exempt organizations to speak out on issues and to have candidate forums. It is the endorsement (or in this case the opposition) to specific candidates that is explicitly forbidden.
What exemptions are specific to churches (i.e. that don't apply to other organizations)? Are the statutes for parsonage written in such a way that they only apply to religious institutions?
Catholic Priests always get there first, according to the Altar Boys
For those who are interested in the enforcement of this prohibition, the IRS doesn't investigate an organization unless a bona fide complaint is filed with the District Director. In 2004 there were only 40 such letters filed in the entire US.
I only know of two "right wing" organizations that have had trouble enough to lose their 501(c)(3) status (though there could be more). These are the Christian Coalition which didn't offer any sort of ministerial program and was a pure political/lobbying organization and Randal Terry's (Operation Rescue) church which took out a full page add in opposition of Bill Clinton.
In recent times, there are quite a few "conservative" churches that have gotten into trouble and been investigated that I haven't followed up on because these things take so long I forget which dirt-bag did what. But they caught clearly stepping over-the-line. Not just vague speeches, but actually being involved in helping candidates campaign by providing church resources, like jets, meeting spaces, campaign literature distribution, etc., plus actively fund-raising and endorsing. We're talking a complete step-over-the-line here, not some trifling ambigous issue.
In something of what is generally considered an obvious "get even" by some conservative groups, All Saints Episcopal was investigated (a "liberal" church) because of an Anti-War sermon given in 2004 was perceived to have been political. If I remember right, they were recently cleared, ironically with the support of some different conservative groups who wish to ensure the erosion of separation of state and (of course) retain their "privilege" of violating the law.
For the record, it's not just churches, this prohibition applies to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations. The simple rule is: If you're tax-exempt, you stay out of politics. Period.
In Canada there are many groups that have charitable status which allows them to issue tax-deductible receipts for donations. As a member of one such group I know that we have to be very careful that we observe and comply with the conditions under which we were granted this status. Specifically, we are an astronomy club that is involved in building and operating a public observatory/tourist attraction. It has been made very clear to us that if we are seen to be spending funds on things which only benefit our members, or not spending money on public education/outreach, we will lose our charitible (non-profit) status and possibly be assessed back-taxes.
This all seems perfectly fair to me. What service do churches provide? How do us tax-paying non-members benefit from church activities? Just yesterday our Prime Minister gave an historic apology for the "services" provided by (mainly) four religious organizations over the past hundred years or so. Maybe some back-taxes are in order here.
In reality we all know it aint gonna happen. If fact our government even stepped in and set limits on the amounts affected individuals could receive via lawsuits (assuming they chose that route over accepting the government's hush-money compensation).
"We," Kemosabe? Mine descended normally.
*rim-shot*
But there are tax-exempt organizations that are allowed to speak out for (or at least against) specific candidates. Moveon.org and the other PACs come to mind. So tax exemption doesn't seem at odds with participation in politics. Is this just a restriction that applies to churches?
Do any of you have experience with the AU?
I'm thinking of volunteering for an upcoming event. I'm a long-time atheist, but I'm new to studying science and philosophy, and I really want to become active in the community, in addition to my work with Big Brothers / Big Sisters.
Is the AU a good group to work with?
I can think of some creationists who would probably say the same about many public university biology departments. Asking about personal benefit can be a double-edged sword, in a country that has a large number of people who are church members such an approach seems likely to cut deeper into secular organizations.
Question:
Is there actually a cogent, reasoned argument as to why 'religious' organizations should enjoy tax-exempt status? Can anyone direct me to some resources on the subject, or lay it out for me?
Moveon.org is a 501(c)(4) organization, donations to it are not tax-deductible. This is true of other non-profit political action organizations as well. It has a very different tax status from that of a 501(c)(3) organization (such as most churches).
#49
I've had discussions like this with coworkers. People have mentioned those without children (or home-schoolers) should be exempt from the education portion of municipal taxes.
I have argued that a case can be made that it is in everybodies interest that tradespeople, lawyers, grocery store clerks, even unemployed potential jurors (ie: everybody) have the best education possible. I think this extends to higher education as well. It's not just the students/scientists/professors that benefit from tax-payer funding.
Yup, the most famous one is the Sierra Club. They posted a newsletter urging people to vote against a ballot proposal related to a Dam project in Colorado and lost their 501(c)(3)status.
More recently the Church of Christ and NAACP have been hit, and currently in court I believe.
Closer to home, the Public Radio Station where I'm based, has had several programmers gone Obama Crazy, and we've had to clamp down on them, explaining that they do NOT have the range of free speech enjoyed by their commercial radio counterparts.
I have all the rules here about political speech in non-profits but hesitate to post them as they are somewhat lengthy and tedious.
Suffice to say, if you know the rules, you can still get your message across, you just have to know how to bob and when to weave.
The first thing that comes to mind is that many 'religious' organizations are educational organizations. It may be a bad education but the tax-code doesn't make that distinction. Crafting a law that would allow valid educational organizations to continue to maintain tax-exempt status yet would forbid such status to 'religious' organizations is likely to run afoul of the constitution. Not that it couldn't be done, but it is very easy to have unintended consequences when modifying the law. From a legal perspective it would probably be much easier to do away with tax-exempt status altogether (although politically that seems untenable).
TAX THE CHURCHES!
Maybe he's getting legal advice from Kent Hovind.
As I understand it, one of the biggest difference between religious organizations and other nonprofits is the requirements for open accounting.
A regular nonprofit such as a 501c(3) has to show its books to a much greater extent than a Church. It has to have a charter and bylaws that limit where its money can go, and has to be able to defend its bylaws as reasonable in light of its express mission in its charter.
So, for example, if an organization is chartered as an "educational" one, but all the money goes to furnishing the board members' home theaters, and little goes to educating anyone about anything, people can go to prison for fraud and tax evasion. (Defrauding the donors and evading taxes on money used for personal stuff.)
As I understand it, the rules for churches are looser, based on a "freedom of religion" exemption, and the accountability and accounting requirements are much lower. There's more you can get away with legally, and more illegal stuff that you can usually get away with because it's off the books.
The usual disclaimers apply. I'm not a lawyer, etc.
I will say that if you're chartering a nonprofit, as I've helped do, you should consult a lawyer who knows the ins and outs of nonprofits, and be very careful what commitments you make in your charter, or in dealings with donors. You can end up with the donors running the show, threatening to sue if what you do is not what they think the charter requires, or consistent with impressions they got from somebody or the other when they donated.
Except for organizations that get less than $5000 a year in gross receipts, churches are the only organizations that are automatically tax exempt and do not have to file. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e3309
But the real question is, why does simply being a religious organization entitle one to tax exempt status in the first place?
From http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html :
jsn @ 17:
A simple search of the AU web site finds at least one counterexample. Your "ONLY" modifier needs to be dropped in order for your statement to be true. See the link.
What, are you kidding? From forensics to the treatments for cancer and heart disease, the services demanded of the citizenry are supported by biology departments and their understanding of evolution.
Maybe you're asking why biology departments can't provide this all with ID. The answer is that it doesn't come from the evidence, and it isn't science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I can think of some creationists who would probably say the same about many public university biology departments. Asking about personal benefit can be a double-edged sword, in a country that has a large number of people who are church members such an approach seems likely to cut deeper into secular organizations.
If they are going to make arguments such as those, perhaps they should stop utilizing all of the societal benefits provided by those biology departments.
Educational purposes are already tax exempt.
Would someone repost the Morality, Fear, Greed etc quote from the other day? I cannot find it.
pastor pwning
No, I think it is obvious why biology departments can't provide a better understanding of biology using ID. ID can't provide that kind of insight and understanding. My concern is that too much of a focus on personal benefit frequently ignores greater societal benefits (i.e. should public education be supported by those who don't have children). My (weak) objection was to the phrasing of the original question which asked about benefits to tax payers who don't belong to a religious organization.Part of the problem where I live is that religious organizations are providing services for which there are not yet adequate secular replacements. For example, my son wants to be in the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts are explicitly a religious organization as per their charter and membership requirements.Fortunately this isn't a problem for my daughter. The Girl Scouts do not have a religious requirement.
I wrote this:
Sorry. I probably should have written that a bit clearer or done a better job linking the ideas so it was more obvious I was speaking solely about 501 (c)(3) organizations. Not 501(c)(4) or 501 (c)(5) or 501 (c)(6)... or 527's or any other esoteric EO.
The fact is, as you pointed out, there are other kinds of of tax exempt organizations. But not all of them are Charitable tax-exempt organizations such as those under 501(c)(3), which were the organizations of which I was speaking.
And of the major types of EO's in the 501 (c)(....), only the 501 (c)(3)'s are completely restricted from the political process. Other 501's are not completely restricted, but I really don't wish to get into these organizations (like AICPA, Unions, etc.).
OTOH, they're not charitable organizations either. Though the dues paid to them may be partially deductible.
Jeff, check out Campfire USA. They have been around at least since I was a kid and they do many of the same things the Boy Scouts do, but they don't discriminate against atheists and gays. If there's not a chapter in your area, start one!
Booth contacted Americans United to dare them to bring the case to the IRS and have him prosecuted. He's trying to bring a test case to court so there may be big money behind him.
I think I read some things over the last year about theocratic organizations trying to do exactly that, build a test case and shop its way around the courts to win a favorable ruling and set a precedent. If they can do it in time for the election, even just a preliminary ruling, the theocrats would have 100s of thousands of nice, dedicated, tax-free PACs all over the country. Anyone with similar recollections?
In the UK merely being a religious organisation does not grant you charitable status (essentially the same as tax exempt status in the US. Charities do not pay tax, and can claim tax back on donations made by tax payers).
In order to qualify for charitable status you need to demonstrate you are a not-for-profit organisation, with clearly defined aims and objectives and those aims and objectives must be for the good of the public. Religious groups can claim charitable status for some of their activities, for example working with the homeless. However such activity should be separate from any religious activity , and should not be simply an means to evangilise.
Canadian parents with might be interested in Cadets Canada. Though the program is administered through the Department of National Defence, there's no military service attached or anything like that, and the camps range from winter camping with Capture the Flag and orienteering and survival training, to summer exchange programs allowing Cadets to camp across Canada and at Canadian bases in other countries.
At the very least, knowing how to iron a uniform, tie a tie, and spit shine boots enough to shave in 'em has served me well so far.
Hi there
you're not up north, we are and we have some doozies too
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/06/charles-mcvety-and-stupid-goe…
PZ, I think you've missed something critical here. Sacrifice is for the FLOCK not the SHEPHERD. See, he exhorts the brain-dead in the pulpits to sacrifice so that he can live as he wants, do what he wants, and say what he wants.
They deserve what they get, IMHO. A dipshit shepherd.
In reply to Brownian at #70: I agree, cadet training is good for most people, even those who are not planning for a career in the military. I'm in my university OTC (Officers Training Corps) and it's massively improved my personal confidence, self-discipline and physical skills. I know a lot of people who were in the various Cadet Forces while in school, and almost all of them also say it was a beneficial experience for their personal development. So I'd encourage anyone to get involved.
For once we agree on something. :-)
#14 is the way to go for them.
I have been saying for years that the federal and state governments should make the freaking churches pay property taxes. I have never for one moment thought that this idea does not enter into the parishoners thoughts, if it will reduce their taxes apportionally, and on top of that they still must tithe when they attend these houses of insanity. I always envision, with sadistic glee, that if the law is passed and the churches have to pay the assessed property taxes, or face foreclosure and seizure. Just imagine what will ensue. The moronic sheepherder will announce to his deranged flock that each and every one has to cough over HALF OF THEIR ANNUAL SALARY to keep their house of insanity open. Now here is what I predict will happen. The open-minded of these dolts will protest, and after figuring that with half their annual salary going to support something that has no return advantage other than a ghostly promise of imaginary paradise, they will in small numbers quit going to church as their earthly wants will be a priority. So with a substantial amount of money lost to stampeding sheep, the insane houses will eventually be closed for want of support. Money will strongly win out over pie in the sky by and by. Tax those freaking houses of insanity now!
They do constantly. Some want to violently expel all scientists after making them do forced manual labor.
Evolutionary biology underlies medicine and agriculture. Other than feeding 6.7 billion people, extending our life spans by 30 years in a century, and preventing mass epidemics of novel diseases from killing tens or hundreds of millions, biology hasn't done much.
What have the Rapture Monkeys done lately for anyone? Other than produce a bogus lie film called Expelled.
I don't see a problem with churches supporting a candidate. I have a problem with their tax exempt status in general. They should pay taxes on any money that isn't spent on charitable activities, just like the rest of us.
They gave free publicity to bands like Iron Maiden, Slayer, Judas Priest, and Ozzy Osbourne, which helped bring attention to heavy metal, making it more likely for me to hear music I like on the radio.
Somehow, that usually turns out to happen whenever the month starts on a Sunday. Maybe there's a connection here...
Oh, don't be so atheistically dense. It's still more proof of intelligent design.
In order to qualify for charitable status you need to demonstrate you are a not-for-profit organisation, with clearly defined aims and objectives and those aims and objectives must be for the good of the public. - Matt Penfold
Matt, "advancement of religion" counts as being "for the good of the public"! Also, the top private schools are all "charities". So the charitable status system is really pretty corrupt.