The Church and Politics

[Serilliant]

As many of you may know, a major bankroller of the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California (the Constitutional amendment to repeal same-sex marriage) was the Mormon Church. An effort is currently under way to petition the IRS to review the Mormon Church's eligibility for tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization.

According to the tax code, a tax exempt 501(c)(3) must be "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes" (emphasis mine). The tax code also provides that "in general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation."

This entire election season has been hot due to the participation of many religious organizations and churches that endorsed candidates and ballot measures.

What is everyone's opinion? Should places of worship like churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, etc. be able to make suggestions as to how its congregation should vote? Do you fear any Freedom of Speech problems in the above effort? How involved do you think organized religion should be able to be in politics?

[Uukan Kimari]

We have freedom of speech? I didn't notice.

[Visla Eraclaire]

The only intersection of religion and politics I care about is: "Thank fucking God that election is over."

[Saxon]

Honestly, I got tired of listening to the bickering between both sides about gay marriage about six or seven years ago when it became mainstream. Really, I don't mean to undermine the civil rights issue that's been going on here, but this is essentially a fight over whether or not to get married. The civil rights movement must have mellowed over the years because this entire issue makes vanilla look spicy.

Religion can't be seperated from government in our country because it's engrained in our culture and most of the people who hold the highest positions of power in this country were financially backed by one religious organization or another. Gay rights stepped on a lot of toes in this country, and not just christians either. Muslims, Jews, splinter religions like Mormons, etc also have some sort of moral beef with the gay lifestyle. As dumb as this entire situation is, I'm beginning to think this a wall too high for homosexuals to climb to get the right for marriage. And even if they do, religious organizations will just be coming back the next year to fight it. Why?

Because it's part of their moral code.

I'm not saying the churches here are right by any means for doing these things to influence voters, but you're essentially dealing with an opposition who literally believes they have to stomp out your way of life or they'll suffer eternal damnation for letting you have your way. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

[Death The Kid]

The only intersection of religion and politics I care about is: "Thank fucking God that election is over."

100% agree.

[Taskmienster]

I personally think that the Mormon church shouldn't be tax exempt due to the way the law is stated, as you have stated in your post. The same proposition, Amendment 2, passed against gay marriage here in Florida as well. I voted against it, because in all honesty I don't think religion should have any say in civil affairs...

[Max Dirks]

What does 501 (h) (5) (a) mean and how does it relate to 501 (h) (3)?

[Serilliant]

The purpose of 501(h) is to create certain exemptions to the 501(c)(3) requirement that "no substantial part of the activities of [a non-profit] is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation". It creates new, higher ceilings of spending that certain non-profits can use for certain types of legislation. However 501(h)(5)(a) excludes churches from claiming these exemptions, and so they are subject to the provision of 501(c)(3) alone.


I'm beginning to think this a wall too high for homosexuals to climb to get the right for marriage. And even if they do, religious organizations will just be coming back the next year to fight it.
I might have agreed if not for judicial support in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut and legislative support in California and New York, not to mention the support that comes in from countries across the world -- and all of this within the last decade. It took 98 years to move from Scott v. Georgia to Loving v. Virginia. Delay does not imply failure.

Though of course no one disputes that churches can and may fight civil rights all they'd like. The question is whether or not they can do this while simultaneously enjoying a (secular) tax shield. Should tax payers (all tax payers) subsidize legislative efforts by non-profits when their purpose is to provide charitable services?

[Max Dirks]

Then the answer to your question hinges on what is "influencing legislation" and what is "substantial." Since we can't rely on the definition of "influencing legislation" in 501(h)(1) or its sister 4911(d) it is really just a "whatever the IRS wants" with respect that.

How would you define substantial though, Serilliant?

[Mage Hunter]

Then the answer to your question hinges on what is "influencing legislation" and what is "substantial." Since we can't rely on the definition of "influencing legislation" in 501(h)(1) or its sister 4911(d) it is really just a "whatever the IRS wants" with respect that.

How would you define substantial though, Serilliant?

Substantial could be as simple as writing propaganda for or against a political agenda. I remember my local church had to refuse to even COMMENT on the war in Iraq because Bush Era Politics and a complaint would revoke status. If commenting on the war could revoke the tax exempt status, then influencing people to vote for proposition 8 would have to fall under that as well.

[Melancor]

I'm not saying the churches here are right by any means for doing these things to influence voters, but you're essentially dealing with an opposition who literally believes they have to stomp out your way of life or they'll suffer eternal damnation for letting you have your way. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Very late after...

In my eyes that has always been a really hypocritical statement to make in regards to these good Cristian people trying to fix everyone's lives. I have never blamed the church for the extreme measures it has taken to segregate society. As I have told you before people only hide their hate behind their religion to justify it. They will rant about all the reasons why this is morally wrong (offensive to them), as to how much it disgusts them to top it off with: "Oh, and the bible says so."

If these people where really that concerned about their religion passing proposition 8 would be only a small part of their agenda. There is an innumerable count of issues that the bible condemns more than gay marriage. Yet they only receive a disapproving comment and they move along. I cannot say for sure that the new testament speaks of homosexuality but I have never read about it there or anywhere in the bible.

The only passage I recall, vaguely, and only because quoted in The History Chanel was something along the lines: "Man and a man who act as a man and a woman should repent, as they have done something horrible." Really the only reason the bible has of condemning homosexuality is because Christianity supports sex for reproduction and reproduction only. I'd like to see them pass a proposition against masturbation.

[Uukan Kimari]

Don't worry, it's fawned on.

[Saxon]

Very late after...

In my eyes that has always been a really hypocritical statement to make in regards to these good Cristian people trying to fix everyone's lives. I have never blamed the church for the extreme measures it has taken to segregate society. As I have told you before people only hide their hate behind their religion to justify it. They will rant about all the reasons why this is morally wrong (offensive to them), as to how much it disgusts them to top it off with: "Oh, and the bible says so."

If these people where really that concerned about their religion passing proposition 8 would be only a small part of their agenda. There is an innumerable count of issues that the bible condemns more than gay marriage. Yet they only receive a disapproving comment and they move along. I cannot say for sure that the new testament speaks of homosexuality but I have never read about it there or anywhere in the bible.

The only passage I recall, vaguely, and only because quoted in The History Chanel was something along the lines: "Man and a man who act as a man and a woman should repent, as they have done something horrible." Really the only reason the bible has of condemning homosexuality is because Christianity supports sex for reproduction and reproduction only. I'd like to see them pass a proposition against masturbation.

What exactly are you saying, Melancor? That a religion shouldn't be held accountable with what it's followers do or that this entire thing about gay marriage isn't as big of a deal as both sides, religious organizations and pro-gay marriage activists, are making it out to be?

[Melancor]

I am saying religion is not entirely responsible. There is a difference between condemning an act and one-mindedly judging it. I am saying that these people are Christians because they are conservative, not conservative because they are Christians. My point is that people dislike gender role reversals, anything out of their status quo, and they just hide behind their religion to justify it.

If they where truly Christians gay marriage should not be their priority. But they are not. God is not the reason why these people highly dislike the idea of gay marriage, it's because the idea is so outside everything they where taught by society and their families. But because there is a small verse talking about homosexuality in the bible, they take it and use it to justify their spite.



I am trying to be as articulate as I can but it's just not possible.