Pastors prepare to take on IRS over political endorsement ban

Quote from rrc06 : I personally think it should be separated altogether, but if were going to allow religious groups to have tax exempt status, why should we allow them to get into political activism?

What are the reasons an organization is granted tax exemption and how are those reasons related to poltical activism?

Totally agree with OP.
IRS should come hard on these churches and revoke their tax exempt status.

Quote from Xygonn : Alternatively, stop exempting non-profits from taxation. If a business runs without making a profit, they will have very little (or no) net income to tax.

"non-profit" doesn't mean they're not encouraged to make a profit - it means they don't pay a dividend to the board or shareholders. Any profit is supposed to fund future activities or pay debt/future-expenses.

Quote from hoser83 : What are the reasons an organization is granted tax exemption and how are those reasons related to poltical activism?

They apply for it, pay a decently expensive fee, and wait for approval (although I think churches are automatically approved). They're supposed to demonstrate that the organization will be for the benefit of the community and promote something (like education or protection etc)

That is very oversimplified, but you see what I'm getting at

Can we start with reversing Citizens United, Corporations are not people. Then we can get tough on Churches.

Quote from 124nic8 : I saw that before. Doesn't answer my question as to why the IRS does not send tax bills to violators. I'm guessing it's political.....the powers don't want to alienate the religious.

They're busy getting ready to enforce Obamacare

Quote from vivahate : "non-profit" doesn't mean they're not encouraged to make a profit - it means they don't pay a dividend to the board or shareholders. Any profit is supposed to fund future activities or pay debt/future-expenses.

Sure but they can still pay giant compensation to people on the board of directors based on analysis of an independent panel.

I don't think ANY religion should be exempt from paying any tax that an equivalent non religious person/group is forced to pay taxes on.

I disagree with the Johnson amendment. Pastors, reverends, priests, and any other religious figure who isn't *directly employed by the state* should be able to preach whatever they want. It's basic freedom of speech, and historically the importance of being able to preach what you believe in is massive.

Remember a guy named Martin Luther King Junior? The world remembers him as a civil rights activist, and rightly so, but don't forget that he was also a clergyman. He preached cutting edge (for the time) politics, and if he hadn't been allowed to do that the country would be in a worse place than it is today. I certainly don't agree with many of the clergymen who preach politics today, but I support their right to do so.

But on an equally important note - How on earth are religions still tax exempt? If you want to talk about separation of church and state, removing their tax exempt status is the first and most important step. I'd fully support that - give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and it's not like the government couldn't use a bit of $$.

Churches are exempt because they serve the state, simple as that.

Quote from xveganrox : I disagree with the Johnson amendment. Pastors, reverends, priests, and any other religious figure who isn't *directly employed by the state* should be able to preach whatever they want. It's basic freedom of speech, and historically the importance of being able to preach what you believe in is massive.

They are free to preach whatever they want. No-one is forcing them to file as a 501(c)3.

Quote from Xygonn : I think they need to be even-handed about this. They should also take away tax exempt status of planned parenthood for donating to an anti-Mitt PAC (Planned Parenthood Action Fund) and Media Matters. All these laws are ridiculous. Either let all non-profits be blatantly partisan, or don't allow any of them to be.

I think the ban should apply to any organization that receives government funds. If the government is giving or paying your organization money, then it's a conflict of interest for your organization to take those taxpayer dollars, directly or indirectly, to lobby the government or influence elections.

Quote from vivahate : They are free to preach whatever they want. No-one is forcing them to file as a 501(c)3.

True and they could also avoid all this mess by just removing money from it altogether.

Quote from xveganrox : I disagree with the Johnson amendment. Pastors, reverends, priests, and any other religious figure who isn't *directly employed by the state* should be able to preach whatever they want. It's basic freedom of speech, and historically the importance of being able to preach what you believe in is massive. Remember a guy named Martin Luther King Junior? The world remembers him as a civil rights activist, and rightly so, but don't forget that he was also a clergyman. He preached cutting edge (for the time) politics, and if he hadn't been allowed to do that the country would be in a worse place than it is today. I certainly don't agree with many of the clergymen who preach politics today, but I support their right to do so. But on an equally important note - How on earth are religions still tax exempt? If you want to talk about separation of church and state, removing their tax exempt status is the first and most important step. I'd fully support that - give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and it's not like the government couldn't use a bit of $$.

I don't think the ban applies to political issues, only endorsing political candidates. It's a fine line, sure, but there is a difference between discussing issues versus fully endorsing candidates.