Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today in Illinois history
Next Post: Even more editorial support for the Independent Map Amendment
Posted in:
* One of the more overlooked aspects of last night’s Trump address…
In text of speech, Trump says he'll keep tax-exempt status for churches that preach political views from the pulpit #RNCinCLE
— Paris Schutz (@paschutz) July 22, 2016
* From his prepared remarks…
At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community who have been so good to me and so supportive. You have so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits.
An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.
I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.
* The Question: Should churches be allowed to actively participate in and fund campaigns without any danger of losing their tax exempt status? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today in Illinois history
Next Post: Even more editorial support for the Independent Map Amendment
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Our Constitution specifically mentions a separation of church and state.
Comment by Ratso Rizzo Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:52 am
No. If you, from a position of influence, seek to affect policy, the least you can do is pay taxes.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:52 am
In the immortal words of my father, “Not no, HELL no!”
and I am a very active participant in my parish
Comment by Groundhog Day Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:54 am
No, using same rationale as first two commenters.
Comment by illinoised Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:54 am
What problem will be solved by this solution?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:54 am
“Should churches be allowed to actively participate in and fund campaigns without any danger of losing their tax exempt status?”
Absolutely not.
Maybe that would be consistent with the values of Saudi Arabia or Iran, but it’s antithetical to the values of the United States.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:54 am
How can you be the “Law and Order” candidate and not abide by the First Amendment of the Constitution??? Trump is pandering to the Falwell’s of the world.
Comment by The Muse Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:54 am
Just another way to open the door to secret money for political causes. Will he also advocate making donors names and affiliations public? If not, this is a sham to get dark money flowing even more. I vote NO.
Comment by Concerned Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:56 am
Churches should be allowed to advocate and express their opinions regarding public policy. However I do not believe they should be able to fund campaigns.
Comment by MOON Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:56 am
And all schools should have mandatory prayers at the beginning of the day.
Comment by Winnin' Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:57 am
Our constitution clearly separates government and religion. Even though the focus was not on establishing an official religion of the U.S. allowing churches to engage in politics from the pulpit would begin to blur the lines. In order to court the vote from a particular faith or church politicians may begin to favor faiths that support them through legislation. Many faiths participate in politics outside the pulpit. But for the congregation they can now choose to support this private activity or not. If a particular political party is supported from the pulpit, many people view this as a different level of support and it now could become an ‘article” of faith for them vs a choice. Dangerous line and when he said it, it really disturbed me.
Comment by illinifan Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:57 am
Voted No. Churches are places of worship-politics from the pulpit muddles that and makes them something else entirely. I do not want to deal with politicking when I sit in that church pew, and I know many others feel the same. If you’re going to directly and overtly attempt to influence your congregation’s political views you need to pay taxes.
Comment by Spock Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:57 am
No. Can’t imagine why it would require an explanation.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:58 am
It is sort of a false issue. churches already to fund political campaigns. They just need to set up separate action committee structures to do so. Furthermore, politics are preached from the pulpit all the time. What of the father Pflagers of the world?
Comment by Saluki Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:59 am
Trump’s point is that some Churches are preaching political views from the pulpit for years.
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger are several who have been preaching left wing politics from the pulpit for years with no apparent consequences to their tax exempt status.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:01 pm
How much time do you think Trump spends in church?
How would he know what gets said from the pulpit?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:02 pm
@Lucky Pierre,
Individuals do not have tax-exempt status. Organizations do.
Comment by JoanP Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:03 pm
=And all schools should have mandatory prayers at the beginning of the day.=
Off topic really, but I assume you are ok if it is a reading of the Koran or Talmud?
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:03 pm
Under Trump’s thinking, why wouldn’t we all become “ministers” of “churches” and stop paying all taxes?
Comment by jerry in chicago Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:03 pm
No. Churches are governed by different rules regarding fundraising than political non-profits such as contribution limits. Under the question’s phrasing, a politician can form a “church” and get around the rules set to cover running for office.
If a church wants to speak out on an issue, that is more than their right. Churches violate their tax-exemption if they endorse, fundraise, circulate petitions, etc.
Comment by Jay Dee Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:07 pm
I’ve been hoping that someone would be able to tell me what Trump’s point was . . . . on anything.
Comment by Out Here In The Middle Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:08 pm
The freedom to express an opinion collectively should not be questioned here, but rather the rationale for tax-exempt status.
Comment by Harvest76 Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:08 pm
As much as government has broken the line separating church and state, it only seems fair to allow rebuttal.
Comment by weltschmerz Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:13 pm
Absolutely NO!!!! Said as a clergy member.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:15 pm
“some Churches are preaching political views from the pulpit for years.”
No kidding?!?
“Preaching political views” is as old as the Gospels, e.g. Matthew 25:31-46.
But the question before us is the significantly different matter of whether churches should be “allowed to actively participate in and fund campaigns.”
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:15 pm
This typical Trump pandering. NO vote. If churches want to politic freely, then give up the great advantages of being a 501(c)-3 and become a business.
Backgrounders:
https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics
https://www.stayexempt.irs.gov/In-depth-Topics/Political-Campaigns-and-Charities
Comment by Anon221 Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:17 pm
Clarification- become a for profit business and pay full taxes…
Comment by Anon221 Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:19 pm
Churches are tax exempt because they are charitable organizations and should be held to the same rules as the other ones. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:19 pm
I have to agree that certain churches have been politicking from the pulpit for decades. I’m not talking about marches, volunteering to drive people to the polls, or volunteering on campaigns.. I’m talking about pastors talking up political candidates and policy positions in the pulpit as part of Sunday services, I’m talking about candidates giving speeches from the altar/pulpit area or in the fellowship hall on church property. That needs to stop.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:24 pm
Egad! I’m chagrined that I find myself in agreement with Lucky Pierre — but just on this one issue.
Very liberal pastors & churches and lots of black churches have been deeply and openly involved for years, and not just on Civil Rights issues.
Comment by Curmudgeon Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:26 pm
Absolutely not. That’s a key part of the deal. While we are at it, churches pay no property taxes but certainly rely on police, fire, and other municipal services. Why the heck does that happen?
Comment by Mongo Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:26 pm
No. If donations to churches used for political purposes are tax-exempt, then maybe donations to the NRA should be too. Gun ownership in the USA is almost a religion to some…. LOL
Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:31 pm
Absolutely not. If a church desires to actively support and fund campaigns, they may so… after forfeiting their tax exempt status. I support my church with my time and tithe but I would resign my membership immediately if the church became engaged in political campaigns- even for a candidate I might support.
Comment by Downstater Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:32 pm
No. If a church wants to get political then they should cease to be organized as a church and organize themselves as an advocacy organization.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:38 pm
For some reason it particularly irritates me that these big box churches build huge buildings & own grounds & pay 0 property tax.
Comment by Patty T Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:40 pm
For pete’s sake Lucky, you are like our resident victim here.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:40 pm
C’mon Rich, he did say anything about funding campaigns, only advocating their political views.
Comment by DGD Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:49 pm
Many church organizations and parochial schools also save taxpayers a lot of money through charity to the poor and underprivileged and keeping many out of the public schools, which would cost you a lot of more money.
I have been attending church weekly for 50+ years and I have never seen politicking in church. You who claim it happens, name the time and place.
Comment by No. 9 Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:49 pm
Ratso - there is an anti Establishment clause in 1st amendment …”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereo”. The whole separation of Church and state is a concept mentioned by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801 - ironically the text of the letter supports the rights of religious groups and ensures the group that there shall never be a national denomination. Interestingly Jefferson closes his letter with prayers and blessings for the group.
Comment by Susan B. Anthony Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:51 pm
In fact, churches should NOT be tax exempt at all.
Comment by Dave B Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:53 pm
Seriously? Uh, duh, no. And if Trump had his way before now, the GOP may very well have nominated Ted Cruz.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:55 pm
They already do it. How many politicians stand before congregations and preach. How many ministers endorse from the pulpit.
Comment by 4 percent Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:56 pm
No.
The cost of exempting churches is huge to communities in terms of lost property tax and other state and local taxes. The federal tax expenditure is also quite expensive.
This tax expenditure effectively represents the whole of our community and society supporting religious organizations by means of covering the cost of the same public goods and services that other organizations pay taxes to support.
If a religious group thinks that they should take charity from the community and then use their government supported status to directly influence elections with money and direct political involvement, that’s just ridiculous.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Absolutely not - yet, in reality some churches, although not necessarily from the pulpit, may engage, through a variety of much more subtle means, to try to politicize and influence their membership.
Comment by illini Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:58 pm
===only advocating their political views===
US Supreme Court has ruled that money = speech. That’s exactly what he was talking about and that’s exactly what they’re pushing.
I was born at night, but not last night You apparently were.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:59 pm
I’m not a tax lawyer, but churches should be held to the same standard all other 501 c 3’s are. If a regular 501 c 3 can funnel money to campaigns than churches should be able to, if not, then they shouldn’t. In short, the law should be held equally and churches need to fit within the confines of the tax code.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:07 pm
Because now the church is giving views on how the taxes should and are going to be spent.
Comment by Citizen A Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:08 pm
The only person who would support this would be one who was hoping to merge religious and political movements into a single, unified force a la Putin. So for the life of me I can’t understand why Trump would … oh, wait a minute.
Comment by Sam Weinberg Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:10 pm
I think the line has become so blurred that it’s more a theoretical difference than a real one. A church hands out a “voter information guide” all but shouting which candidate to vote for is permissible, but actually naming the candidate isn’t. Meanwhile, an athiests club or “philosopher’s club” can go ahead and name them. Either crack down on the current status quo or opening it up.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:16 pm
Then all political advocacy should be tax-exempt.
Comment by Not It Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:19 pm
voted no. In the Bob Jones University SCOTUS case, the Court pulled the tax-exempt status of the university (a religious entity) because the university didn’t allow inter-racial dating. The Court’s opinion did specifically state, however, that this ruling only applied to educational entities, not to churches themselves. But the 501(c)(3) code specifically states that a 501(c)(3) organization (which includes churches) “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” Seems pretty clear to me that the IRS certainly has the right to revoke that status if a church goes over that threshold.
Comment by Steve Rogers Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:20 pm
No. Churches are already wielding political influence and should be investigated for whether the tax exempt status is still valid.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:21 pm
No, the boundaries are already smudged.
Comment by Dome Gnome Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:21 pm
Just to clean a couple things up:
1. The Constitution does not use the phrase “separation of powers.” That comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the early 1800s.
2. The First Amendment prohibits the government from sanctioning an official religion. It does not stand for the proposition that no religion can attempt to influence government. Look no further than the religious right to understand the difference.
To the poll: We already have churches who attempt to politicize the pulpit. Politicians are invited to churches and allowed to speak at those churches. The Bishop for the Springfield Catholic Church came out during the 2014 election cycle and claimed that the Democratic Party was inherently evil, whereas the GOP was not.
Not only should that be prohibited, but the prohibition should be strengthened. Churches (and other non-profits) receive a dis-proportionate benefit from society. They rely on the donations they receive to keep the lights on, and the government allows them to benefit from the infrastructure in place (and paid for by everyone else’s tax dollars) without having to pay taxes. It is the prohibition on political activities, among other things, that makes the special tax treatment fair. Political activism is (and rightfully should be) reserved for the people who are taxable. If you want to play, you have to pay the entry fee.
Comment by 47%-er Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:27 pm
I’m a pretty regular churchgoer. I could be ordained in just a few minutes (internet is great, isn’t it?) and never pay taxes again? Worst. Idea. Ever. Well maybe not. Trump is full of them.
Comment by Sense of a Goose Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:29 pm
===That comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the early 1800s===
It comes from a treaty, which has the force of law.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:31 pm
Trump was obviously pandering to an important group of Republican voters who did not turn out in huge numbers for Mitt Romney- evangelical Christians.
Interesting how he won their support despite the 2 ex wives and no noticeable church going history but Romney did not despite giving huge donations to the Mormon church.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:46 pm
No. 9:
Google “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”. That’s just one of the most overt efforts. Countless lesser, spontaneous instances happen constantly.
Lake County Democrat:
If the atheist or philosophy club are official nonprofits then no, they cannot make such endorsements and remain tax-exempt either.
Of course, as others have observed, this is somewhat pointless since no church has ever had their exemption revoked over this. The IRS will not touch it, and lawsuits are generally denied under the ridiculous modern interpretation of standing. Political activism is commonplace on both sides of the political aisle in churches, though let’s not kid ourselves that this means the level of influence is equivalent.
I don’t actually support revoking church tax exemptions overall, though I do support eliminating the parsonage exemption, a blatant constitutional violation. But while I support the ban on tax-exempt political activity, it’d be nice if we first decided to actually, you know, BAN it.
Comment by Threepwood Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:56 pm
No. No. No. If one could make political contributions tax deductible by laundering them through “religious” organizations, only religions would be making political contributions. All PACs would become religious organizations.
Comment by increasingly depressed Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:06 pm
Sure…why not? Church leaders pushing Democrats already do it. It will level the playing field.
Comment by The Snowman Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:13 pm
Tax exempt status for Churches is a two way street . Hard to believe churches receive a ” disproportionate benefit from society”
How can this be possible when you include all of the social services many churches provide through private donations at a far lower cost than if the state or federal government picked up the entire cost and the children they educate at no cost to the taxpayer?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:19 pm
Churches have a choice to incorporate as a different type of organization if they wish to. Churches aren’t prohibited from participating in partisan political action, 501(c)3’s are. Churches have the choice to make if they view their mission as consistent with what 501 (c) 3 standards and benefits are or whether their mission is different and should classified differently under tax law.
Churches are not required to incorporate under 501(c)3
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:20 pm
this is more pandering to his COO, Pence. that guy in charge of anything should scare us. Trump wants to be the cheerleader of the USA and outsource the work to Pence and the lobbyists. HELL NO
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:22 pm
Voted “Yes.” My reason is that it seems unfair that some churches are heavily politicized and nobody says boo about their exempt status. The same rules ought to apply to all in a uniform manner.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:27 pm
Rich - you are both right, sort of. the Treaty of Tripoli only states that the US was not founded on the Christian religion. that has no force of law upon American law. The phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” comes from Jefferson’s letter. It too has no force of law.
It was in the Supreme Court cases Everson v Board of Education and McCollum v Board of Education where the court states that the establishment of religion clause in the first amendment is taken to mean “a wall of separation between church and state.” Those cases do have the force of law.
Comment by Filmmaker Professor Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:34 pm
“- Ratso Rizzo - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:52 am:”
No it does not
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:42 pm
I would add that the body of legal precedent supporting that interpretation of the Establishment Clause is quite robust; it’s not limited to those two cases. Also, fun fact: McCollum happened right here in IL! Check out “God is Not On Trial Here Today” for a documentary of the case.
Lucky Pierre: I’d be a bit more sympathetic to that argument if churches opened their books and were evaluated by watchdogs such as Charity Navigator. As it is, I still support protecting their charitable activities…and I think teasing out their charitable product from their “operational expenses” is probably too fuzzy and volatile an effort to bother with.
Suffice it to say I don’t think churches, overall, would be well-rated as charities. But for various reasons I also don’t think it’s fair to expect at least a large portion of them to be, and I’d settle for enforcing the basic constitutional boundaries.
Comment by Threepwood Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:47 pm
I voted no. I always saw the point of church funds was to help those in need. And while many politicians seem morally bankrupt, it does not qualify them as in need of money. May as well hold a telethon to fund Angelina Jolie’s next adoption if we’re going to go down that road.
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:48 pm
Getting religion into politics would be disastrous for the military too. True Story. First day of Navy Chaplain Basic training in Newport RI, Rabbi Kaprow says “Our first lesson on the chart is public prayer. So let’s bow our heads in prayer.” (heads all bow) “MIGHTY ZEUS, GIVE US THIS DAY VICTORY OVER ALL OUR FEARS!” Every head jerks up, eyes wide with astonishment. “What?” ( he says in the thickest Brooklyn accent) “That is why you make your prayers as neutral as possible and end them with In Your Holy Name We Pray. Because if one chaplain can pray in the name of Jesus then I can pray in the name of Zeus. Be seated. Okay, any questions? No? Moving on then.”
It’s not political correctness. It’s being civil to fellow citizens of our nation and their individual beliefs which they are by right allowed to have.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:18 pm
I think we ought to tax churches. But then I think we ought to tax businesses and they seem to get away with not paying also.
Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:33 pm
As a lefty clergy guy, I voted no. Churches can say whatever they want. However, if they want the benefit of accepting tax deductible charitable contributions, they have to abide the same rules as everyone else.
Comment by uptown progressive Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:33 pm
what increasingly depressed said–non-deductible political contributions would become deductible charitable contributions
Comment by corvax Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:39 pm
Oh man, honeybear. If only all chaplains were Rabbi Kaprow…
Comment by Threepwood Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:22 pm