IRS and partisan politicking by FellowTraveler

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

IRS and partisan politicking

POSTED BY: FELLOWTRAVELER
UPDATED: Friday, September 22, 2006 06:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1497
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:10 PM

Just happened upon this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Religion-IRS.html

Quote:
IRS Investigates Calif. Church

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) -- With the campaign season in full swing, a liberal church is locked in an escalating dispute with the IRS over an anti-war sermon -- delivered two days before the 2004 presidential election -- that could cost the congregation its tax-exempt status.

Interestingly, this church wasn't investigated:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-le-sunday20.2aug20
,1,661372.story?coll=la-news-comment

Quote:
Politics in the church pews

...Unmentioned, however, is the East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina, which kicked out its Democratic members in 2005, telling them that if they voted for Sen. John Kerry they must "repent."

So, just so I have the rules straight: Anti-War sermon that does not endorse a specific canidate is against the law. Kicking congregants out of a church for voting Democratic is acceptable.

Incedentally, I was raised a Baptist (SBC) and the last time I went to that church was the day they handed out a voter guide telling me for whom I should vote. That church hasn't been investigated either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's so obvious and partisan. BTW - the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the Nature Conservancy have all been the subject of major, lengthy audits that have dragged on for more than a year each.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's so obvious and partisan. BTW - the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the Nature Conservancy have all been the subject of major, lengthy audits that have dragged on for more than a year each.

Its not uncommon. During the Clinton years the IRS suddenly very interested in conservative charities and churches.

Its kind of like another check and balance. At some point all these organizations should know that they may be the subject of an investigation, so they need to keep their books straight. That they don't is surprising. Corruption it turns out is a non-partisan trait.

The only groups really treated unfairly are the gay rights groups...I hear they get it from both sides.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:33 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The only groups really treated unfairly are the gay rights groups...I hear they get it from both sides.

I sincerely hope that wasn't intended as a pun...

As for the tax status of churches, I've never understood why they have tax-exempt status to begin with. It's a hold-over from pre-revolutionary days.

Heh. Sometimes it does come back to bite them, though. A few years back a school-voucher proposition nearly passed in California, with a great deal of backing from conservative groups. Until a coalition of Wiccan groups paraded around the state capitol announcing that they were casting a spell to make the proposition pass--so they could open schools promoting wiccan and pagan studies.

Should'a seen the fundies scramble!

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:08 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I sincerely hope that wasn't intended as a pun...

Oh no, that would be bad. I guess I phrased it poorly. What I meant to say is that they are used to taking it up the arse regardless of which party is in power.

Quote:

As for the tax status of churches, I've never understood why they have tax-exempt status to begin with. It's a hold-over from pre-revolutionary days.

Taxation is a form of control. The idea was that government should not be in the business of placing a burden on churches. Some reasonable controls are understandable and constitutionally acceptable. Like churches can't abuse children or slaughter animals in an unsanitary manner and such. Also, when a church engages in certain activites not related to its practice of religeon, such as political advocacy and fund raising, then it may lose its tax excempt status. I note that this is not limited to politics. My parent's church leases property it owns to a neighboring Wendys. The income they receive from that and other investments is taxed by the government, although the Church as an entity maintains its tax exempt status.

We should consider a Unitarian Church of the Holy Firefly...instead of a Pope, we'd have a Whedon (in a very fine hat). Then we could get off work for all the big Fireflier holidays like Serenity Release Day, Series Cancellation Day, Nathan Fillion's birthday, Columbus Day (it comes at a very convienant time of the year for me). We'd have our own religous garb (browncoats and Jaynehats), our own lingo (that would be shiny), and even our own Holy Book (with very scary hair). We could even go Jihad'in against the infidels who produce reality TV and Hugo Chavez. It'd be great.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:19 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Hero, Bwa-haa-haa-haa. You may work for the man, but you are a funny mother f*ck*r!

I have, in the last few years, often wondered about the orgin of church's tax exempt status. I had assumed that it had something to do with separation of church and state and if a church pays taxes, they support the state and therefore are not separated. Wrong again...

Two things about this concern me. The first is that very few moral issues are "outside" of politics. Gay marriage, abortion, poverty, and war are all issues of faith. And at the same time they are political issues. It appears, at least to me, that the feds are using church's tax exempt status as a weapon against them. It may seem that the pinko variety are in the crosshairs now, but an idealogical shift in DC could change that quickly.

The other thing that bothers me is that churches DO use state services. As an example, the dominate denomination in my neck of the woods is the SBC and they have, in recent years, grown fond of the big-ass mega-churches (looks like temples dedicated to mammon to me, but that's neither here nor there). Every Sunday, as I drive to get booze in preparation for the big games, I get held up by police officers directing traffic so those worshippers can get outta' their 20 acre parking lots. If they are using state services and not paying taxes, that means I am paying for those cops. So, I am subsidizing their faith and that ain't right! I don't want my taxes helping any church of any denomination.

I say revoke it all and make all churches render unto Caeser.

Edit- Hey Hero, how 'bout those Browns!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:31 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

HERO, I'd like to see some examples of churches being audited under Clinton, just to be sure you aren't comparing apples to oranges. Did they go after any church on the grounds that it preached that abortion was immoral? That would be equivalent. Or were these churches and tax exempt organizations actually advocating a certain party? or in the case of many of our tax exempt christian organizations which are receiving money from our government, were they thrusting their religion upon those they were charged with helping?

And on edit - what the hell is your problem? why is it that even when right-wingers agree that something is not on the level they just shrug and say that's the way it is for everybody. Don't you have any personal responsibility over your own damned party? Shouldn't you be policing it when it goes astray from good ethical behavior?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 22, 2006 3:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Not to be anti-paranoid or anything, but:

Note that the IRS audit of the Pasadena church was publicized by the church. The IRS is prohibited from discussing any on-going audits. For all we know, they may be audting the church in East Waynesville right now.

Note also the length of time between the alleged offence and the audit; about two years. It apparently takes a while to get an investigation going. Could be the East Waynesville case is still in the opening stages.

Then again, without a review of the actual language in the laws Congress passed about partisan political activity by churches, I can't be sure that the East Waynesville church actually broke the rules.

BTW, about church audits during the Clinton adminstration, there's this from the NY Times article cited above.

Quote:
According to the IRS, the only church ever to be stripped of its tax-exempt status for partisan politicking was a church near Binghamton, N.Y., that ran full-page newspaper ads against President Clinton during the 1992 election season.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 22, 2006 6:15 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Not to be anti-paranoid or anything, but:

Well, that's no fun! Damn realists...

Quote:
Note that the IRS audit of the Pasadena church was publicized by the church. The IRS is prohibited from discussing any on-going audits. For all we know, they may be audting the church in East Waynesville right now.

Note also the length of time between the alleged offence and the audit; about two years. It apparently takes a while to get an investigation going. Could be the East Waynesville case is still in the opening stages.

Then again, without a review of the actual language in the laws Congress passed about partisan political activity by churches, I can't be sure that the East Waynesville church actually broke the rules.

These are fair points and CA church sure looks like it wants a fight. I, also, didn't add that the pastor of the East Waynesville Baptist Church took those members back after considerable media scrutiny. He didn't want a fight. Well, if my memory serves he didn't, but I couldn't find any documentation which is why I omitted it originally.

But this still seems awful fishy to me. I, honestly, cannot see a discernable difference between what the CA pinko church did and what conservative Bible Belt churches have been doing for over a decade. Surely your familiar with the voter guides that are handed out in the months before an election. It's not a new phenomenon and there has been ample time for the feds to investigate those churches. I can't imagine Ralph Reed keeping his mouth shut if they were. That's the kinda' thing that woulda' made the news. They aren't the silent majority, anymore...

Also, hasn't Revs. Falwell and Robertson publicly supported candidates for over 20 years (starting with candidate Carter)? Again, the feds have had ample time to check these guys out, but I haven't heard about it (I'm reasonably well informed) and I really think they woulda' made it a big deal (as they should).

On the other hand, perhaps it's not partisan. The feds investigate peace groups, a not so subtle form of intimidation, as a matter of course now. While it's probabaly safe to assume that most of these groups are left of center, I know plenty of conservatives that are anti-war. Maybe the feds are leaning on any group that is anti-war and the fact that this is a church is incidental...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE