It turns out that ordinary Christians are now on the president's enemies list. It is well known that fundamentalist christians openly support right-wing causes throughout the country. Catholic bishops called for excommunicating John Kerry (that's what denying communion is, boys). Here in CA, fundies, Catholics, and Mormons all openly preached that parishioners must vote YES on proposition 73 (requiring teenage girls to notify parents 48 hours before abortion, even if she is a victim of rape or incest). For all that, the IRS kept mum. Now, it has taken aim at a guest sermon at All Saints' Episcopal church in Pasadena, preaching against war, condemned Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war as sinful. For that, the IRS is now seeking to strip away its tax-exempt status. Christian churches must not preach peace? During the first month of the Iraq war, the Diocese of Los Angeles put on the cover of its monthly newspaper, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" Right wing churches can say whatever they like, however -indeed, they are invited to the White House! The IRS does not even move to strip the tax-exempt status from the right-wing churches whose political activism is outrageous, such as those bishops who sought to excommunicate Kerry. This is a blatantly political move, singling out a progressive Christian church for a sermon while turning a blind eye to the active political machinations of right-wing churches who distribute "voting cards" to their members and actually tell them how to vote.
I am absolutely outraged. This is nothing but another IRS enemies list.
As a practicing Episcopalian, I know that, come election time, the church is careful never to tell people how to vote, however much it may discuss the morality or immorality of issues of war, peace, racism, and bigotry. Because all talk about society and morality is inherently political, the question is not whether politics and churches can be separated, but how to cordon off a zone of political activism as beyond the pale. The line has always been drawn at direct advocacy for candidates or propositions at election time on the other. There is a difference between claiming that "abortion is sin" and "It is a sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate." It may seem like a fine distinction, but you need a "bright line" in order to avoid a chilling effect on free speech. For better or for worse, right wingers have pushed the boundaries farther yet.
Let's call this action what it is. This is an obvious attempt to chill speech in the Episcopal church - prompted in part by those Republicans who hate gays, no doubt (the church's advocacy of gay rights is (sadly) its most well-known theological position).
The good news is that Episcopalians will not shy away from this kind of fight. And if someone is trying to get Christians to shut up, it means that their voices are being heard. Let's just say we've got a model about how far to take a fight for the truth.
I have a proposal. As a policy matter, the IRS should remove tax-exempt "status" for types of organizations (whether religious or charitable or "non-profit") and replace it with a set of deductions for specified not-for-profit activities (e.g., church repair, charitable giving, hosting AA meetings, etc.). Otherwise, all money would be counted and taxed as income. Then a church, or the Red Cross, or any other organization, would be free of restrictions on speech altogether, and free to take political positions.
Monday, November 07, 2005
The New Enemies List
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 9:59 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hear! Hear!, LTG. I have said in past comments that the tax exempt status of my own church ought to be pulled. I wonder what IRS office can call to get the ball rolling!
I have been very interested in hear Jimmy Carter's interviews since th release of his new book,Our Endangered Values . He is gravely concerend about the exclusion that the Christian Concervatives are practicing and the new type of political activism.
// posted by USwest
Interesting proposal, LTG. Would organizations like the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church suffer greatly under your proposal?
All large organized churches would suffer to some extent. The Mormons most of all because of all their business activities; Catholics least, I suspect, because of their many hospitals and schools that would be all deductible.
The bigger issue is property tax, from which churches are historically exempt. I would maintain that exemption because it would cause severe hardship to many small churches to remove that exemption, but it is only a small benefit to the big megachurches.
// posted by LTG
Like LTG I'm outraged at this obvious abuse of the IRS for political purposes. This is one of abuses listed in the Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon (Article 2, paragraph 1).
However I would go further than LTG. Why should churches be exempt from any taxes any more or less than any other non profit organization? I would include property taxes in that. I don't care how much hardship it would cost them. They have benefitted for generations from tax breaks that Madison himself thought were unconstitutional. They're lucky we don't ask for our money back!
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RBR, I think that disturbing settled expectations is always a big deal. The American voter, who is a churchgoer by and large, would care about suddenly having to pay property taxes for structures that were always tax free. It could, perhaps, be eased in. Or there could be a substantial deduction - such as first $500,000 in value is tax free. That would snare the cathedrals and megachurches, but exclude small rural churches that are struggling (and would produce terrible, terrible press). I know RBR is hostile to religion in general, but we should think of political problems in their practical dimensions as well.
// posted by LTG
Conceding the praticle points...what is the justification for granting favored tax status to those non-profits who claim a supernatural foundation? In short, what is the justification on principle for saying that Madison was wrong to oppose the establishment of these kinds of tax breaks and other quasi-feudal priviledges accorded to the religious at the expense of and against the will of non-believers? At best it is justified by appeal to the tyrrany of the majority (as LTG pointed out).
LTG is correct to say that I am hostile to religion. But to be honest if the Constitution said "The United States is founded on the Anglican Tradition" I would probably keep my mouth shut. The problem from my point of view is that not only do churches on both the left and the right assume a right of moral and political primacy over all non-believers (and many believers) but they also insist on tax support from the public coffers which are supplied in part by non-believers or at least non-church members.
I would thrilled with a phased removal of tax priviledges. And I'll shed no tears for people who lose those priviledges.
All that said, I recognize that Christians have dominated this land for a long time and they have grown accustomed to having things their way. For that reason, it is unlikely I'll get my money back.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RBR, it's not such a crazy thing. I mean, we have tax breaks and outright subsidies for all sorts of things: solar power, tobacco, home mortgages, charities, blind people, and so on. Churches (and synagogues, mosques, Moonie centers, LDS Temples) are just one of many, many special interests that get a nifty little break. It's not so nefarious.
On reflection, we coudl also handle property tax the same way. We could have a deduction from property tax for the % of property dedicated to actual meeting space, whether it be a theater, auditorium, or church space (not office spaces).
// posted by LTG
I don't like ag subsidies either. Blind people are at least deserving of a break. What hardship have the good parishiners of the Episcopal Chruch in Pasedena or the Bishops of Roman Catholic Church had to undergo?
They differ from the other groups you mention in that their claim to priviledge is based only on their status as religious groups.
I love your idea of de-linking the subsidy from identity and linking it instead to publicly beneficial activities. The problem would be that churches cannot be trusted not to use provision of charity as a tool for conversion. And I would bet they would insist that their missionary work be subsidized as well anyway.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I think that, overall, basing tax breaks on activities rather than status will provide for sounder reasoning and less of a chilling effect. The question RBR raises is whether Salvation Army type charity (you can eat if you listen to their preaching) would be acceptable. My inclination would be to say no, or to perhaps say something like "you can deduct the cost of the food, but not the cost of the event, if the event has any religious content" yadda yadda. All about line drawing.
// posted by LTG
I think Madison would approve of your line drawing project. But I doubt he'd be optimistic. That's why he drew a single line much more agresively.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I probably shouldn't fan this fire, but I thought the point of changing the tax rules initially was to preserve the incentive for institutions to do good, without restricting their political (or religious) speech.
Rather than trying to draw lines, I would go the direction of letting the Salvation Army style charity be deductible. I would like the NEA to fund artists to make art, and not concern itself with the political statements in that art. Similarly, feeding poor people is feeding poor people, and assuming the deduction is put in standard terms (the deduction for providing x meals in location y is z, regardless of whatever "extra" expenses you incur), I don't care if you try to convert them to Christianity, atheism, Republicanism, or vegetarianism. You can say whatever you want, and if the homeless folks find it intolerable, they won't eat your food, and you won't get your deduction.
Maybe it's late, but I think any non-profit (religion or no) will have political motives, and trying to judge which motives are okay to sanction comes back to the core issue of the government restricting the speech of its favored institutions.
Heck, it seems to me that any non-profit is a political movement that the government treats as beneficial for society. I interpret LTG's idea as not judging the motives except the charitable benefits delivered to society, and that seems brilliant. So brilliant that after you hear it, it seems like it should've been obvious.
// posted by Bob
Post a Comment