The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed a lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service that raises an interesting question. The group challenges the government’s different treatment of religious and non-religious non-for-profit organizations. While tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations must file a detailed application form, fee and annual information to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status, churches and other religious organizations are exempted from the requirement to file the reports and fees. The lawsuit alleges that the added expensive and detailed paperwork is a form of discrimination against non-religious groups.
The lawsuit does raise a valid question of why such forms are not uniformly required or waived for all groups. An atheist group is presumably not treated as falling under a religious exception despite that fact that it is an alternative to such faith organizations. The lawsuit alleges that “[t]he preferential treatment provided to churches and other affiliated religious organizations constitutes an exclusive and discriminatory benefit to religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, as well as the equal protection rights required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” states the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Madison.
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the IRS “from continuing to exempt churches and other affiliated religious organizations from the application and annual information filings required of all other non-profit organizations under §501(c)(3).”
Notably, the IRS Commissioner is accused of a non-enforcement policy with regards to electioneering by churches:
In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the
Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
22. As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been
blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during
the presidential election year of 2012. Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky, for example, required that a
partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend
before the recent Presidential election.
What do you think?
Here is the lawsuit.
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as its Complaint against the
Defendant, Douglas Shulman, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, alleges as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation (“FFRF”), seeks a Declaration
under 28 U.S.C. §2201 that the Defendant, Douglas Shulman (“Shulman”), in his capacity as
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), has violated, continues to violate, and
will continue to violate in the future, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States by failing to enforce the electioneering restrictions of
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code against churches and religious organizations. The Defendant’s
actions also violate the Plaintiff’s Equal Protection rights.
2. Plaintiff requests the Court to enjoin the Defendant Shulman from continuing a
policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious
organizations. The Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the Defendant to authorize a high
ranking official within the IRS to approve and initiate enforcement of the restrictions of
§501(c)(3) against churches and religious organizations, including the electioneering restrictions,
as required by law.
3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 with
respect to the relief sought against the Defendant Shulman. The Court also has the authority to
issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201. The Court further has the authority to
award injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §1443 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
4. The United States has waived sovereign immunity, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§702, for
actions that seek specific relief other than money damages, as in this case.
5. Venue is appropriate in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e), where FFRF has its principal office.
6. The Plaintiff is a tax-exempt non-profit organization under §501(c)(3) of the Tax
Code, and as such, FFRF must and does abide by the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
7. The Plaintiff is a non-profit membership organization that advocates for the
separation of Church and State and educates on matters of non-theism. The Plaintiff has more
than 19,000 members, residing in every state of the United States, as well as the District of
Columbia.
8. FFRF represents and advocates on behalf of its members throughout the United
States.
9. FFRF’s membership includes individuals who are federal tax-payers who are
opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.
10. The Defendant Shulman is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,
with a principal address of 1111 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20224; the
Defendant Shulman is sued in his official capacity.
11. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits governmental preference for, endorsement of, and discrimination in favor
of religion.
12. Section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code prohibits all non-profit organizations,
including churches and other religious organizations, from intervening in political campaigns as
a condition of their tax-exempt status.
13. All organizations that are recognized as exempt from federal income tax under
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are subject to the prohibition against political campaign intervention.
14. All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, that are exempt
from federal income tax under §501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are prohibited from participating or
intervening, directly or indirectly, in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any
candidate for elective public office.
15. The restrictions of §501(c)(3) on electioneering activities do not preclude
discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates; the fact that
candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of
religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue.
16. A discussion of issues violates the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) of the
Tax Code if the discussion contains overt support for or opposition to a particular candidate.
17. Factors relevant to determining whether an advocacy communication constitutes
impermissible campaign intervention include: (a) whether the communication identifies one or
more candidates for a public office; (b) whether the communication expresses approval or
disapproval of one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions; (c) whether the communication
is delivered close in time to an election; (d) whether the statement makes reference to voting or
an election; and (e) whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue
distinguishing candidates for a given office.
18. The electioneering prohibition of §501(c)(3) applies to tax-exempt organizations,
including churches and religious organizations, and to the actions of individuals, including clergy
or other religious leaders, acting as representatives of tax-exempt organizations; the prohibition
of §501(c)(3) does not apply to the political activities of clergy or other religious leaders
undertaken in their individual capacities.
19. The Internal Revenue Service follows special procedures before commencing
inquiries about potential violations of §501(c)(3) by a church or religious organization.
20. The IRS may initiate a tax inquiry of a church or religious organization if a highranking
IRS official documents in writing the acts and circumstances, including potential
violations of the electioneering prohibition, that lead the official to reasonably believe that the
Church may have violated the requirements for tax exemption under §501(c)(3).
21. In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the
Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
22. As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been
blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during
the presidential election year of 2012. Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky, for example, required that a
partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend
before the recent Presidential election.
23. More than 1500 clergy reportedly also violated §501(c)(3) on October 7, 2012, in
a deliberate and coordinated display of noncompliance with the electioneering restrictions of
§501(c)(3), including prominent megachurches.
24. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ran blatantly partisan full-page ads in
October of 2012 in the Wisconsin State Journal; the Ministry also ran ads in the New York Times,
USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and more than a dozen national and battle ground state
newspapers before November 6, 2012. The Association also published expressly partisanship
matter on its website at http://www.billygraham.org.
25. Open and notorious violations of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) by
churches and other religious organizations have been occurring since at least 2008, with churches
recording their partisan activities and sending the evidence to the IRS.
26. The Internal Revenue Service, however, under the direction and leadership of the
Defendant Shulman, is following a policy and practice of non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) against
churches and religious organizations.
27. The IRS, under the direction of Defendant Shulman, on information and belief,
has failed even to designate an official with authority to initiate enforcement of §501(c)(3)
against churches and other religious organizations.
28. The non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against
churches and other religious organizations constitutes preferential treatment to churches and
religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,
which are required to comply with the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
29. The Defendant’s non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) as to churches and religious
organizations provides preferential treatment that is not neutrally available to other tax-exempt
organizations, including the plaintiff FFRF in this case.
30. The non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) as to churches and other religious
organizations by the IRS, under the direction of Defendant Shulman, directly benefits churches
and religious organizations, while discriminating against other non-profit organizations,
including the plaintiff FFRF, solely on the basis of religious criteria.
31. §501(c)(3), as administered by the defendant Shulman, provides preferential
treatment that is not neutral and generally applicable to all tax-exempt organizations.
32. The policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) as
to churches and religious organizations, by the Defendant Shulman, violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment.
33. The preferential treatment of churches and other religious organizations by the
Defendant results in obligations on secular non-profits, including the Plaintiff FFRF, that are not
imposed on churches, which distinction arises exclusively from the application of religious
criteria.
34. The Plaintiff is disadvantaged vis à vis churches and religious organizations by
the Defendant Shulman’s policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against
churches and other religious organizations.
35. Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit as a result of
being non-exempt from income taxation, while also being able to preferentially engage in
electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.
36. The preferential tax-exemption that churches and other religious organizations
obtain, despite noncompliance with electioneering restrictions, amounts to more than
$100,000,000,000 annually in tax-free contributions made to churches and religious
organizations in the United States.
37. The policy and practice of non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against
churches and religious organizations by the Defendant Shulman and the Internal Revenue
Service confers benefits solely on the basis of religious criteria, on the basis of which the
Plaintiff FFRF does not qualify solely because of the application of religious criteria.
38. As a result of the discriminatory administration of §501(c)(3) by the Defendant
Shulman and the IRS, the Plaintiff FFRF seeks equal treatment herein in the form of a level
playing field, including by denying such preferential treatment to churches and religious
organizations.
39. The Defendant’s policy of non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against
churches and other religious organizations has the effect each year of excluding billions of
dollars from taxation and this exclusion is available only to churches and religious organizations
with the concomitant right to also engage in electioneering activities.
40. The tax benefits preferentially provided to churches and other religious
organizations constitute an exclusive and discriminatory subsidy to religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff FFRF demands judgment against the Defendant Shulman and
the IRS as follows:
a. Declaring that the policy of the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction
of Defendant Shulman, violates the Establishment Clause and the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution by providing preferential treatment to
churches and religious organizations;
b. Enjoining the Defendant Shulman, and the Internal Revenue Service, from
continuing to allow preferential and discriminatory treatment under
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code exclusively to churches and religious
organizations;
c. Ordering the Defendant Shulman and the IRS to forthwith comply with
necessary steps to designate an IRS official legally authorized to initiate
action against churches and other religious organizations that are reasonably
believed to have violated the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3);
d. Awarding the Plaintiff its reasonable costs and disbursements of this action as
allowed by law;
e. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated this 13th day of November 2012.
BOARDMAN & CLARK LLP
Source: Raw Story
and Happy 2013 Everyone, I hope it is stellar for us all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizLV1_Rugk
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizLV1_Rugk&w=560&h=315%5D
Belief and faith when used in the religious connotations show the absence of objective reality(Truth). We do not need any belief nor faith for the Sun outside, for example. As far as humanity is concerned, it has had a destructive effect on it. History is its proof.~ Teji Malik
1, December 31, 2012 at 3:26 pm
———————-
You are not the be all and end all of judgement of the Objective Truth 😉
When you say “We do not need…..” I hope you are not speaking for me, and who are you speaking for and with what given authority?, ’cause….ahem, yah I don’t think so…..
There has been at least as much construction through religious communities as destruction (and I can recall stories of Jews hidden by the Sisters in the European Countryside from the Nazi Orcs…and yes, there is even a member of my church who survived in that way…)….and often, it is the religious communities that were, historically, the most grievously targeted and destroyed by the marauding State, as not…..
Id, not all religions are sell outs and /or batshiit crazy…..
Woosty’s still a Cat
1, December 31, 2012 at 10:58 pm
“You are not the be all and end all of judgement of the Objective Truth 😉
When you say “We do not need…..” I hope you are not speaking for me, and who are you speaking for and with what given authority?, ’cause….ahem, yah I don’t think so…..”
Oh, it seems I have it a nerve somewhere.:-). Objective Reality is for all humankind with or without any belief system,yourself included. You seem confused between the Subjective TruthS on which the religions are based on with the Objective one. It happens. Common sense is not a given authority but cultivated. Did you check the Moon tonight, on the last day of the year Objectively or just had a belief and faith about it? 🙂
“There has been at least as much construction through religious communities as destruction (and I can recall stories of Jews hidden by the Sisters in the European Countryside from the Nazi Orcs…and yes, there is even a member of my church who survived in that way…)….and often, it is the religious communities that were, historically, the most grievously targeted and destroyed by the marauding State, as not…..
Id, not all religions are sell outs and /or batshiit crazy…”
The history is the proof of the destruction and mind controls by the religions. Your denial does not turn the Subjective into the Objective. Priests in the long frocks is just one example out of many and let’s not shove under the carpet the Crusades. We may trip on it.:-)
Your Church? hmmmm.
Happy New Year. I hope, 2013 is better than the years before for you all.
Idealist707: “and off the tax burden borne by the secular taxpayers for their exemption from taxes.” Except this country, USA, is roughly 90% religious, about 85% of that Christian (an engineer’s first estimate). Where you live the numbers are quite different. Ultimately, we pay taxes as a communal effort, I certainly wouldn’t want religionists saying their taxes shouldn’t go for anything they deem secular (there’s a buried joke there).
My take is the same as Gene H.’s: the power to tax is the power to destroy, along with that pesky “Congress shall make no law” which would include tax law. The encroachment issues he may have I see as overblown, given past history of religion in US politics (on both sides of the false dichotomy). The trend line is generally positive, just as it is with the 14th since ’24. Encroachment is in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th by “war on terror”, as well ignoring the 9th and 10th (incorporation affects the latter) nearly whole cloth. We have enough exclusions to the 4th that I wonder why the fiction of even “they meant well”. But then most Americans think “the press” means journalists, and have no idea of the underlying importance of the 3rd. I actually got all this in elementary school (a salient opening :>) in CA. Couldn’t graduate in my district without knowing the Bill of Rights.
Well, you are a busy man, so don’t waste more time on me.
Happy new year.
Going to bed. It is 3:30 AM here.
Idealist707,
No waste.
You are one of the few who have patronized me in my efforts.
I’ll take it for what it’s worth and give you the thanks.
Maybe Jonathan will be tempted by my efforts and give the cause a little more, high-level attention that it deserves.
I’m available for consultation should some serious “players” begin to address the issues and think I may have somewhat to offer to the conversation.
rlbaty,
then I misunderstood your statement in re the Gaylor daughter and your relationship with her. ´Glad you get support there.
What else do you do for kicks. 😉
My claim to fame here is to being the most poorly informed poorly arguing commenter here. For who the other famous ones are; keep watching JTs.
So when I say: “Never heard of it.” everybody sighs or groans.
Self irony is also my schtick. (My yiddish is poor too).
Idealist707,
I didn’t know we had so much in common. I thought I was pretty competitive in being uneducated and uninformed; but I do have two or three hobbies.
My other big hobby is squabbling with young-earth creation-science promoters.
I don’t do much, but I would like to think that what little I do I do very well, and that’s one big reason I can no longer entice adversaries to openly, honestly, come out, come clean and chat with me about matters of mutual interest.
I try to keep it simple.
idealist707 1, December 31, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Dredd,
I’d say the first two. Least effort, I assume, and max payout without opposition, that is until the finance folks get wind of you.
Lawyers drink themselves to death, and judges die of autogenic cancer from hatred of mankind. Cops are too dumb to do the latter.
I’m burning up with self-praise tonight. 😉
=================================================
Yeah well, take it to some hottie in your fjord and burn baby burn baby … do you guyz do chevies too? Love and peace! 😉 Happy More Champagne! 😉
Happy New Year to our host and the host of faithful…
http://youtu.be/6sYu12PdqVI
rlbaty,
You make a good case and are well-informed. But perhaps not the conformist that are liked by the FFRF group. Sounds like a sect or cult.
It has a leader and not a board, I presume. Always a bad sign.
Keep us informed. I will save the link to see how it goes.
Not much help comes from here as I know of, so hope your banner headlines help also.
BTW, did you mention a locale for FFRF?
Idealist707,
I am a little surprised that you do not exhibit being more informed regarding the FFRF.
I suspect Jonathan Turley knows them a lot better than I do.
They are based in Madison, WI and do have a board; even though it might be thought of as being the personal cause of the Gaylor girls.
They are currently pursuing a substantial physical plant expansion to accommodate their employment growth. I think they also have quite a “war chest” to finance their activities, with the support of 19,000 + members.
I got the link to the coverage from Turley on this blog from a posting on the FFRF website.
I’ve worked very cordially with the FFRF management over the last several years on the IRC 107 issue. I even had a telephone interview with Annie and Dan that was broadcast on their FreeThought Radio on October 31, 2009. That program is still available on the FFRF website.
I appreciate your support and hope that some of the readers here, theist or atheist will see the propriety of the challenge to IRC 107, particularly in these times where tax reform, the Constitution, and God are everywhere being talked about in political circles.
Here’s that direct link again to the petition:
http://wh.gov/QQOh
Here’s a link to the FFRF page where information on it’s board and executives is posted:
http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted
Dredd,
I’d say the first two. Least effort, I assume, and max payout without opposition, that is until the finance folks get wind of you.
Lawyers drink themselves to death, and judges die of autogenic cancer from hatred of mankind. Cops are too dumb to do the latter.
I’m burning up with self-praise tonight. 😉
idealist707 1, December 31, 2012 at 3:40 pm
….
—–Dredd, you have prescient powers or you are time-traveling or a good lawyer or judge. Which?
=============================================
Which pays the most?
Rafflaw,
Good work.
Let me add: “and off the tax burden borne by the secular taxpayers for their exemption from taxes.”
Thanks for this year’s blogs from you and your nun tales from school. 😉
Not to criticise but the timing could have been better. Although Christianity has taken over the winter solstice observance and is a good opportunity to bring up the petition, it is the time of year when all are stressed, secular or not, and few have time for anything but year end crisis at work and family expectations.
Your best hope will be a counter-petition from the religious, well-organized and herded as usual.
Or try Facebook and twitter.
Or later again simply. There are no limits I hope on repeat petitions.
I repeat your words here:
“Did I mention that the direct link to the petition is:”
http://wh.gov/QQOh
Idealist707,
I suppose another petition could be filed later. The case is going to be around a long time.
Maybe the next one could be initiated by Annie Gaylor. It might be more effective in rallying the FFRF 19,000 members. I think they are staying away because they don’t like me on a personal level.
I’ve been doing what I can, where ever I can to promote it. Many theists, like me, should be supporting the effort, but I got no real influence.
When Annie filed her first IRC 107 challenge, the Pacific Justice Institute filed to intervene for the preachers before the week was out. This time around, despite pledging to do the same, the PJI has not showed up and no one else has showed up to try and help the Government defeat the FFRF effort. Interesting legal/political strategy! Just what is the “preacher lobby” up to?
Forbes has been posting some columns addressing the petition, and the FFRF even notes one of those columns on its “FFRF in the news” webpage.
I may have forgotten to provide the direct link to the petition. :o)
Here it is:
http://wh.gov/QQOh
Here’s the link to the FFRF website reference to the Forbes article dealing with the petition:
http://ffrf.org/news/media
It’s still the headliner on that page.
I would have thought that would have prompted a bigger response from the FFRF membership. The FFRF could surely do more to promote participation on the part of its members.
Annie Gaylor, put out the call and get the FFRF membership to start signing up en masse at:
http://wh.gov/QQOh
If you are a religion, you must keep your religion out of politcs or you should lose your tax exempt status. The IRS needs to start following the law.
RLBaty,
Special thanks from one who is always craving action, action, action!
Informative, actionable, and rewarding via the pleasure centers of the brain as Dredd would say.
Hope you get many votes from here. And that their efforts are not exhausted by that. The goal is not reached yet.
Thanks, “idealist707”. I hope so as well. It’s been a slow start, and I am hopeful that one or more of my outreach efforts will spark a spike in participation. Did I mention that the direct link to the petition is:
http://wh.gov/QQOh
My, my, this does seem to be a defining issue for many here.
Congratulations Professor on at least two winners today, the other being Scientology criminalization by Belgium.
Many one-eyed and even blind arguements advanced, thus all can now feel insulted if they need someone to vent on. Always to be of service a certain person said.
A few specific comments in random disorder:
—–Woosty, you advance your usual message, but unfortunately Í can not join you as I view religion as a service provider dispensing propaganda which does no societal good, only evil. The current suit shows its evil political face.
Preaching the golden rule and advocating candidates who would deny “public support to the needs of the poor” is nothing to be respected.
Yes, it was accorded sanctuary status then. Does it function as such today?
Yes, for political paid advertisers. Wonder how much Billy Graham got from certain sources?
___________________
Generally, I would add that no one mentioned directly the use of church organizations for laundering of politically motivated contributions and as an tax exempt one to boot, in acting in violation of the Constitution. The courts should not turn a blind eye to this, that is unless they are scared of reprisal from religious organizations. The Sct is sensitive, you know.
____________________
—–NickS, please address the issue, not the merits or previous deeds of the messenger. Thanks otherwise for daring to question the holy roller defenders of the constitution. I am biased perhaps in my favoring them for the service they provide me.
—–Dredd, you have prescient powers or you are time-traveling or a good lawyer or judge. Which?
—–MichaelB, BINGO what kind of drone do you use?
—–Blind Faithiness. Concisely put. Agreed.
Thanks to all for loan of the channel. If I have been wrong or dominated unfairly, then that is the world of FauxNews we live in. Even they enjoy the constitutional freedom to lie. That share we all, with the reservation of the 47 percenters who don’t have energy after their week’s labors, be it in filling out of welfare forms or slaving at Walmarts. They deserve the “citizen salary” being discussed now in Sweden. Has it been there in the USA.
Social innovations are hopefully like evolution, only the fittest survive.
Obviously, greed as a basic genetic factor has high or at least persistent good fitness value.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL, AND I MEAN ALL
Looking forward to one here. I will not be able to hold out until 12 midnight your time, 6 AM here.
While I agree that some non-profits are necessary many non-profits are simply an excuse to avoid taxes, e.g. like the NFL or the NCAA.
As to selective enforcement of the laws of this land that is already occuring whether it’s the IRS with tax code or INS on immigration.
Some organizations (I’ll use this more generic term as I agree with much of Woosty’s position) are as Woosty describes as being “not part of the state”, a clear acknowledgement of the seperation of Church and State. Those organizations such as churches, synagogs, mosques, seminaries, missions, have as their primary purpose to teach and preach and propagate their faith. As Woosty noted they have non-profit status. They are also exempt from many standard and federally enfoced business and labor practices. They can discriminate in their hiring so that they can legally hire only people only of their faith. I believe they’re also exempt from minimum wages laws and some others. I have no problem with having this status as long as they restrict their activities to those “not part of the State”, i.e. getting involved in secular elections. They are also exempted from some aspects of ObamaCare.
Organizations associated with religious-based groups though not confing or even invloved in the activities of education or the promotion of the faith do not or should not have the same religious tax exempt status. These might include hospitals, nursing homes, colleges and universities. These organizations are truly business enterprises. They should not be getting the religious exemption. They are required to follow all the same non-discriminatory hiring and emplyment rules, regulations, guidlines and laws that govern General Motors. Some business organizations as described in my second paragraph have sought to be exempted from the Obamacare provision regarding contraception. Since these organizations ARE part of the state, they MUST be compelled to comply with ALL the provisions of Obamacare as they are bound by ALL the provisions of fair labor practices.
One last thought. It is outrageous that our secular government spends even one nickel on faith-based programs which proselytize their faith in order for a person to get rehab let alone have a federal; office to handle such matters.
The FFRF currently has 3 cases pending against the IRS/US. The oldest, challenging IRC 107, the law that allows ONLY “ministers” all the income tax free income they can get as long as they spend it on housing, is, in my opinion, the most meritorious and has already made history. If not resolved earlier (i.e., summary judgment), trial is scheduled for January 2014. A final resolution judicially, however, is years away.
In conjunction with that case, I have taken advantage of the Obama White House’s program that allows for the petitioning of the Administration for action on causes. A response is promised to petitions garnering 25,000 signatures within 30 days.
The direct link to the petition asking Obama to request that Congress repeal IRC 107 is:
http://wh.gov/QQOh
Teji Malik
1, December 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm
…….
I am against any tax exempt organisation because in fact, as someone mentioned earlier they all have business models and hence ARE businesses.
——————–
No they don’t.
No they aren’t.
The ‘business’ of religious organizations is not (supposedly) grounded in $$$$.
But they exist and must comport in the language of those who they are surrounded by and who they have necessary truck with…ie; when the church has a leak in the roof they must buy a new roof and pay roofers to put it on. When a non-profit roofing business does business, they must put on roofs and charge $$$ to meet their financial obligations of goods and services….and they can do funny things like give $$$$ to the State to support certain policies and parties etc….
Religion is about belief and faith and humanity…and a whole lot of other things…they are also required to be a-political, non-political, to refrain from taking political stance….BECAUSE they are not part of the State….if they were part of the secular State…then your arguments would be correct.
A church that argues for or against a particular political party rather than by simply educating on the facts of the issues of the day risks losing their non-profit status.
Woosty’s still a Cat
1, December 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“Religion is about belief and faith and humanity……”
Belief and faith when used in the religious connotations show the absence of objective reality(Truth). We do not need any belief nor faith for the Sun outside, for example. As far as humanity is concerned, it has had a destructive effect on it. History is its proof.
“and a whole lot of other things”
What whole lot of other things? Please elaborate. I hope a whole the other things do not include spending money against Prop. 8 in CA.
“they are also required to be a-political, non-political, to refrain from taking political stance….BECAUSE they are not part of the State….if they were part of the secular State…then your arguments would be correct.”
Yes, they are but they do not PRACTICE what they “PREACH”.
“A church that argues for or against a particular political party rather than by simply educating on the facts of the issues of the day risks losing their non-profit status.”
Thanks for proving my point. Their business model is based on the so called ” Family Values”. ( Ask the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich who changed his denominations more often than his condoms if he can get it up). They all have a political “wide stance” of some sort. Denying the facts is what religions want: to believe and have faith in.
jmq, Her mother ran it and then Annie took it over, six of one… Regarding petty horseshit. Vegas has the odds 500-1 we’ll agree on them being petty, but here goes. There are the numerous manger pissing matches. There are the Christmas trees on govt. property. One that really pissed me off was her going after the Salvation Army. They have a great after school program for low income and homeless kids funded by MSCR. She raised a fuss about bibles being on the premises..come on! Every Spring there are the petty graduation prayers “controversies.” I didn’t agree w/ her stance on the National Prayer Day and she eventually lost that one. As stated previously, there are lawsuits like this which I substantially support. JMQ, I’m simply not an idealogue and so much of what she does I’ll consider petty, you’ll consider it noble. We can both agree the courts decide who’s correct. You win some, you lose some. I hope she wins this one. Maybe w/ some actual big victories she can focus on what’s important. Finally, please don’t call me “This is a war on Christmas” guy. I’m not. Madison Ave. will NEVER allow any war on Christmas to succeed anyway..NEVER!