Should churches opposed to gay marriage get the same tax breaks?

[Divine Wind]

There is that false equivalency the right has become so famous for. You think all ideas are equal. No. Some are just shit, and expecting anyone to accept a shit idea just because there is another idea from a different source is stupid.

Another famous far LW tactic: the bald faced lie.

While many Americans don't like the far Right, you are continually giving reasons why they don't like the far Left.

You are trying to deny false equivalency? Get real. It's the basis for right wing nuts that think science classes should teach the world is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days as equal to all the geological and evolutionary information we have.

Wow. You are so far Left, you just can't stop lying.

Give one example of where I said "all ideas are equal". Give a single instance of where I supported teaching anything contrary to evolution, the Big Bang or any other scientifically established fact about our Universe. If you can't, will you admit you just an emotionally overwrought far LWer who will sink to any level, including lying about others, to push your political agenda?

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't understand why any church gets a tax break

Same reason why any other 501(c)(3) group gets a tax break.

Dear Divine.Wind
I think religious churches have more breaks than other nonprofits.
The rules might have changed, where the IRS started requiring more documentation and filing
to keep the status.

But this is one summary I found of some of the differences:

Unlike other religious organizations, churches (including synagogues, temples, and mosques) that meet 501(c)(3) requirements are automatically considered tax-exempt without having to file Form 1023 for tax exemption. The IRS uses a variety of characteristics, facts, and circumstances to determine whether an organization is considered a “church” for federal tax purposes. These include: whether the organization has a distinct legal existence, recognized creed and form of worship, definite and distinct ecclesiastical government, distinct religious history, formal code of doctrine and discipline, membership not associated with any other church or denomination, established place of worship, regular congregations and religious services, organization of ordained ministers, schools for the preparation of its ministers, ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study, literature of its own, and Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young. Additionally, court precedents have emphasized the associational test, which defines a church as an organization whose members meet regularly for organized worship. See Found. of Human Understanding v. United States, 614 F.3d 1383, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Although churches claiming exemption under 501(c)(3) are generally subject to all of the requirements under 501(c)(3) (e.g., no private inurement or private benefit, no substantial lobbying, no electioneering), they are also subject to special tax rules and are not required to file Form 990 returns.

--http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/starting-a-nonprofit-what-is-religious-under-501c3/

 

[emilynghiem]

There is that false equivalency the right has become so famous for. You think all ideas are equal. No. Some are just shit, and expecting anyone to accept a shit idea just because there is another idea from a different source is stupid.

Another famous far LW tactic: the bald faced lie.

While many Americans don't like the far Right, you are continually giving reasons why they don't like the far Left.

You are trying to deny false equivalency? Get real. It's the basis for right wing nuts that think science classes should teach the world is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days as equal to all the geological and evolutionary information we have.

Dear BULLDOG I haven't found a lot of groups still teaching that.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the "days" in the Bible represent PERIODS or "eras".
They are some of the most insistent that there needs to be one unified interpretation.
And they do not interpret the "days" to be LITERAL.

The 6,000 timeline represents 6 AGES, and is focused on the Hebrew/Mosaic LINEAGE.

The Bible mentions there are other "daughters of the earth" left out of this lineage.
So of course there are other tribes and history.
Who do you think the sons of Adam and Eve took as wives?

There were matriarchal and egalitarian/agricultural cultures, worshipping earth and nature,
before the Scriptural laws and lineage that the Bible covers.

If you are going to take one literal thing "out of context" and try to discredit whole groups,
would you agree to people taking Slavery out of historic content and discrediting
all of American history and govt because this practice used to be accepted as an institution?

Some people do that!

Are you going to throw out all science because people USED to teach the sun revolved around the earth or that there was a "brontosaurus" (that turned out to be the result of mixing up two other species).

What is wrong with people's perception EVOLVING and growing over generations to
broader understanding? Do you think that's going to happen instantly?
And there isn't a process that involves sharing knowledge and understanding
we have at one point in history before growing past that and adopting and adapting from there?

Would you have thrown out what the Greeks gave us in math
just because they didn't have a symbol for 0 and their system wasn't perfect and complete?

????

BULLDOG the day you can invent any system of philosophy, social science, religious symbols,
civil laws or govt that
"COME OUT PERFECT THE FIRST TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN"
Maybe I'll believe you have the right to complain and discredit other groups that have started such systems.

The American govt system was set up to handle change.
What is wrong with revising and amending as society grows to handle more diverse populations and process?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All churches should participate in the political arena. All churches should pay tax on any monies not applied directly to charitable work.

That should apply to all other nonprofits as well.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't understand why any church gets a tax break

Same reason why any other 501(c)(3) group gets a tax break.

Dear Divine.Wind
I think religious churches have more breaks than other nonprofits.
The rules might have changed, where the IRS started requiring more documentation and filing
to keep the status.

But this is one summary I found of some of the differences:

Unlike other religious organizations, churches (including synagogues, temples, and mosques) that meet 501(c)(3) requirements are automatically considered tax-exempt without having to file Form 1023 for tax exemption. The IRS uses a variety of characteristics, facts, and circumstances to determine whether an organization is considered a “church” for federal tax purposes. These include: whether the organization has a distinct legal existence, recognized creed and form of worship, definite and distinct ecclesiastical government, distinct religious history, formal code of doctrine and discipline, membership not associated with any other church or denomination, established place of worship, regular congregations and religious services, organization of ordained ministers, schools for the preparation of its ministers, ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study, literature of its own, and Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young. Additionally, court precedents have emphasized the associational test, which defines a church as an organization whose members meet regularly for organized worship. See Found. of Human Understanding v. United States, 614 F.3d 1383, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Although churches claiming exemption under 501(c)(3) are generally subject to all of the requirements under 501(c)(3) (e.g., no private inurement or private benefit, no substantial lobbying, no electioneering), they are also subject to special tax rules and are not required to file Form 990 returns.

--http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/starting-a-nonprofit-what-is-religious-under-501c3/

True, and thanks for the input, but they still have to comply with 501(c)(3) requirements as the statement reads:
"Although churches claiming exemption under 501(c)(3) are generally subject to all of the requirements under 501(c)(3)"

If the IRS cuts them some slack on the filing requirements, fine. They still have to comply with 501(c)(3) rules. If they don't, then it's an IRS enforcement issue which I am perfectly fine with the IRS doing equally to all groups under 501(c)(3). Rulez is Rulez.

 

[Divine Wind]

All churches should participate in the political arena. All churches should pay tax on any monies not applied directly to charitable work.

That should apply to all other nonprofits as well.

You'll kill many charity and other volunteer nonprofit groups since as "nonprofit", they won't be able to pay their taxes. Ergo, many will dissolve.

Should enforcement of rules be enhanced? Of course. Kill the rule for many charities doing good work and helping with "the general welfare" of Americans just to kill off a few assholes? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is that false equivalency the right has become so famous for. You think all ideas are equal. No. Some are just shit, and expecting anyone to accept a shit idea just because there is another idea from a different source is stupid.

Another famous far LW tactic: the bald faced lie.

While many Americans don't like the far Right, you are continually giving reasons why they don't like the far Left.

You are trying to deny false equivalency? Get real. It's the basis for right wing nuts that think science classes should teach the world is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days as equal to all the geological and evolutionary information we have.

Dear BULLDOG I haven't found a lot of groups still teaching that.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the "days" in the Bible represent PERIODS or "eras".
They are some of the most insistent that there needs to be one unified interpretation.
And they do not interpret the "days" to be LITERAL.

The 6,000 timeline represents 6 AGES, and is focused on the Hebrew/Mosaic LINEAGE.

The Bible mentions there are other "daughters of the earth" left out of this lineage.
So of course there are other tribes and history.
Who do you think the sons of Adam and Eve took as wives?

There were matriarchal and egalitarian/agricultural cultures, worshipping earth and nature,
before the Scriptural laws and lineage that the Bible covers.

If you are going to take one literal thing "out of context" and try to discredit whole groups,
would you agree to people taking Slavery out of historic content and discrediting
all of American history and govt because this practice used to be accepted as an institution?

Some people do that!

Are you going to throw out all science because people USED to teach the sun revolved around the earth or that there was a "brontosaurus" (that turned out to be the result of mixing up two other species).

What is wrong with people's perception EVOLVING and growing over generations to
broader understanding? Do you think that's going to happen instantly?
And there isn't a process that involves sharing knowledge and understanding
we have at one point in history before growing past that and adopting and adapting from there?

Would you have thrown out what the Greeks gave us in math
just because they didn't have a symbol for 0 and their system wasn't perfect and complete?

????

BULLDOG the day you can invent any system of philosophy, social science, religious symbols,
civil laws or govt that
"COME OUT PERFECT THE FIRST TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN"
Maybe I'll believe you have the right to complain and discredit other groups that have started such systems.

The American govt system was set up to handle change.
What is wrong with revising and amending as society grows to handle more diverse populations and process?

6000 years is the lineage of Jesus. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace. There were certainly other people in the world that weren't born in a state of grace.

I have not found much in the Bible that was in controversy with science.

 

[fncceo]

If no one has said this yet, I'll say it now to reiterate.

If you want to entertain a litmus test for tax-exempt status for a church's stance on gay rights, then you have to be willing to agree to deny tax-exempt status to ANY church, synagogue, mosque, gurudwarha, reading room, hof, or bascilica that takes a stand one way or another on any issue that could be deemed political -- left or right.

So, Baptists are in the same financial boat as Unitarians... stand on social issues equals no tax-exempt status.

 

[Divine Wind]

...If you want to entertain a litmus test for tax-exempt status for a church's stance on gay rights, then you have to be willing to agree to deny tax-exempt status to ANY church, synagogue, mosque, gurudwarha, reading room, hof, or bascilica that takes a stand one way or another on any issue that could be deemed political -- left or right.

So, Baptists are in the same financial boat as Unitarians... stand on social issues equals no tax-exempt status.

Agreed, which is exactly what the LWers are seeking here; to control churches with politically-correct thoughts. Examples of what it appears they are pushing for:

"Does a Church believe it's okay to drink soda's larger than 36 ounces? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

"Does a Church support self-defense rights? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

 

[fncceo]

Agreed, which is exactly what the LWers are seeking here; to control churches with politically-correct thoughts. Examples of what it appears they are pushing for:

"Does a Church believe it's okay to drink soda's larger than 36 ounces? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

"Does a Church support self-defense rights? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

But, like every other liberal feel-good idea, they don't realise it will bite them on their ample tuchas'. While they love to compare Xtian churches to the Taliban, they forget that there are just as many left-wing churches who are up to their collars in left-wing politics. Unitarians, liberation theologians, and many other churches stand to lose their tax-exempt status if such a measure were equally applied.

 

[Divine Wind]

Agreed, which is exactly what the LWers are seeking here; to control churches with politically-correct thoughts. Examples of what it appears they are pushing for:

"Does a Church believe it's okay to drink soda's larger than 36 ounces? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

"Does a Church support self-defense rights? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

But, like every other liberal feel-good idea, they don't realise it will bite them on their ample tuchas'. While they love to compare Xtian churches to the Taliban, they forget that there are just as many left-wing churches who are up to their collars in left-wing politics. Unitarians, liberation theologians, and many other churches stand to lose their tax-exempt status if such a measure were equally applied.

Agreed. Let's see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others start losing their tax exemptions. See what happens to the DNC then.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All churches should participate in the political arena. All churches should pay tax on any monies not applied directly to charitable work.

That should apply to all other nonprofits as well.

You'll kill many charity and other volunteer nonprofit groups since as "nonprofit", they won't be able to pay their taxes. Ergo, many will dissolve.

Should enforcement of rules be enhanced? Of course. Kill of the rule for many charities doing good work and helping with "the general welfare" of Americans just to kill off a few assholes? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You miss my point. Only non-charitable dollars are taxed. Frankly, I'm dead sick of getting every single week of the year repetitive, expensive glossy four-color offset multi-page brochures describing charities to whom I send money. Perhaps it would cut down on such waste and actually send more dollars to those in need.

 

[Divine Wind]

All churches should participate in the political arena. All churches should pay tax on any monies not applied directly to charitable work.

That should apply to all other nonprofits as well.

You'll kill many charity and other volunteer nonprofit groups since as "nonprofit", they won't be able to pay their taxes. Ergo, many will dissolve.

Should enforcement of rules be enhanced? Of course. Kill of the rule for many charities doing good work and helping with "the general welfare" of Americans just to kill off a few assholes? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You miss my point. Only non-charitable dollars are taxed. Frankly, I'm dead sick of getting every single week of the year repetitive, expensive glossy four-color offset multi-page brochures describing charities to whom I send money. Perhaps it would cut down on such waste and actually send more dollars to those in need.

Not all of those qualify for 501(c)(3) exemptions are actual charities in name only.

I use this to check them out: Charity Navigator - Your Guide To Intelligent Giving | Home

 

[emilynghiem]

Agreed, which is exactly what the LWers are seeking here; to control churches with politically-correct thoughts. Examples of what it appears they are pushing for:

"Does a Church believe it's okay to drink soda's larger than 36 ounces? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

"Does a Church support self-defense rights? Deny their tax-exempt status!"

But, like every other liberal feel-good idea, they don't realise it will bite them on their ample tuchas'. While they love to compare Xtian churches to the Taliban, they forget that there are just as many left-wing churches who are up to their collars in left-wing politics. Unitarians, liberation theologians, and many other churches stand to lose their tax-exempt status if such a measure were equally applied.

Dear fncceo the difference is the left does not depend on their churches for organization or support. They use political parties, media and corporate financiers for that.

When are we going to hold political parties to the same standards of keeping beliefs out of govt?

That's where the imbalance is.

The leftwing political lobbies and parties are allowed to impose THOSE " beliefs " through govt which count as secular so they pass under the radar. But the beliefs of the right are shot down as religious. Both are faith based beliefs but aren't treated equally. So depending on your affiliation, your beliefs are not as protected as someone of a different group. That's not equal protection of the laws.

When are we going to get wise and start weighing and treating political beliefs with the same standards of equal protection that we apply toward religious beliefs. Otherwise people are not treated equally by law. This causes discrimination by creed.

 

[fncceo]

Dear @fnnceo the difference is the left does not depend on their churches for organization or support.

Respectably, you're wrong. It doesn't make the news, but left-wing churches run massive get-out-the-vote drives in urban cities. They are huge supporters of left-wing causes, both financially and from the pulpit. Taking a stand in favour of Gay Rights would be just as political as taking a stand against them ... both sides stand to lose large if something like this were to become reality.

 

[Divine Wind]

Dear @fnnceo the difference is the left does not depend on their churches for organization or support.

Respectably, you're wrong. It doesn't make the news, but left-wing churches run massive get-out-the-vote drives in urban cities. They are huge supporters of left-wing causes, both financially and from the pulpit. Taking a stand in favour of Gay Rights would be just as political as taking a stand against them ... both sides stand to lose large if something like this were to become reality.

While you are correct, the point I believe Emily was trying to make is that for the Left, churches are a relatively small section of their finances and membership, while on the Right, religious believers compose a much larger part of their voting bloc.

Just as those on the far Right wanted to impose voter ID as a means to disenfranchise LW voters, I believe the move by the far Left to strip churches of their tax-exempt status is an effort to weaken the RW voting bloc. We shouldn't be playing politics with the rights of our citizens.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @fnnceo the difference is the left does not depend on their churches for organization or support.

Respectably, you're wrong. It doesn't make the news, but left-wing churches run massive get-out-the-vote drives in urban cities. They are huge supporters of left-wing causes, both financially and from the pulpit. Taking a stand in favour of Gay Rights would be just as political as taking a stand against them ... both sides stand to lose large if something like this were to become reality.

OK I see what you mean fncceo. Yes, with gay rights I believe that was only done because of support of Christians on the left teaching tolerance and inclusion of gay people, couples and marriage. With voting rights and BLM the church pulpits either make or break these issues, and with Immigration especially, the Christian left is behind why the sanctuary cities get away with putting forgiveness before enforcing laws.

So which do you think comes first:
Addressing the leftwing Party leaders with this idea of equal respect inclusion and treatment of political beliefs instead of harassment and discrimination by creed? Or addressing the liberal urban churches and leadership there?

With the left, I still think they deify their party and govt leaders and follow them like the divine right to rule. I think they only USE the Christian churches when it serves their political plans, but all the while they are bashing and blaming Christians and the religious right and churches as the enemy to bully back against .

Where is the place to start, so this same machine can be oiled to run smoothly instead of being abused to grind against itself with self destructive fear based politics for power?

Do we start by oiling the individual gears? Do we go straight to the top or start at the bottom? I've been networking at the grassroots level, then working up down left right across, trying to get the bugs and wrenches out of the machine . the biggest divide is blaming people by party which has been used as a catchall for conflicts between classes, race, beliefs, economics etc.

How do we bridge these barriers?

If we go by the left's dependence on their liberal party leaders as the heads of their beliefs and movements, is that helping by working with their system or representation ? Or is it setting this up to fail because that way is already so divided against the right?

Is going through the churches the answer because they have a better chance of reconciling with the Christian right? If the churches are more sold out, that won't work either.

Would the third parties be the place to start? And supporting the call for a Convention of States to address these mutual splits and biases, complaining it is undercutting the democratic process by censoring representation of people equally if different groups or affiliations are not treated equally by law.

Is a neutral third party position the best way to trumpet there is a problem here?

 

[Unkotare]

I don't understand why any church gets a tax break

Then you don't understand McColloch vs Maryland or the 1st Amendment.

 

[Dragonlady]

I don't understand why any church gets a tax break

It's supposed to be because of their charity work. But some of these mega churches do little in the way of charity and pay large salaries to their staff.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't understand why any church gets a tax break

It's supposed to be because of their charity work. But some of these mega churches do little in the way of charity and pay large salaries to their staff.

Thanks Dragonlady
The rule for nonprofits has been that only 5% has to go toward the services and up to 95% can go to admin or other expenses of the operations. The rest has been left to consumer choice to research and fund the more effective charities and not support the bad ones .

Dear Billy_Kinetta and Divine.Wind
Are you saying that the charitable resources are not taxed, but the other noncharitable revenue is taxed? And the SAME groups can do both?

Do such groups need to file Separate 501c3 and 501c4 to keep their political outreach separate from their charitable , and have separate branches under separately filed groups of different status for each purpose they serve? Would that help?