Church Not Involved In Politics?

[USU78]

That's the point, you have a perfect constitutional right to speak politically "through your church." But the government also has a perfect right to require your church to pay income taxes like any other lobbying organization or political action committee if you exercise that right on behalf of your church.

You misunderstand what taxing is. It is the assertion of control over something or someone, such that you have the power to destroy that something or someone. The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause together prohibit gov'ts' involvement in religion and religious practice. If the gov't elects to tax the religion or regulate the religious practice, it exercises potentially destructive power over the religion, which power it lacks.

If it exercises that power, the constitutional prohibition on that power notwithstanding, then it acts as tyrant.

Just 'cause you don't like Mormons' politics doesn't mean you get to ignore the Ist Amendment.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Do you even read what I post?

No one is denying you the right to speak in or out of church on any subject you like. What we can not do is force others to believe as we do. That is in our Articles of Faith.

I don't even know what the DNC platform is, and couldn't care less in any event. As I have already said I'm not a member of any political party. Further if anything I agree more with the Green Party platform, but even there I have disagreements. But for your and my edification here is what Sen Durbin said

Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., in an interview with Fox News, vigorously rejected criticism of the platform, and said both parties are "devoted to this country" and "God-fearing" and urged people to move on.

"Those of us who believe in God and those of us who have dedicated our lives to helping others in the name of God don't want to take a second seat to anyone who is suggesting that one word out of the platform means the Democrats across America are godless," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz25cqVtlEe

I've neither ever advocated for nor endorsed in any way the expulsion of religious ideas from the public square. What I have advocated for and endorsed is that public policy be geared towards the secular and not the sectarian.

My religion is of my concern and is between me and my God. It is not a concern of anyone else. I can teach, preach, expound, and exhort to my hearts content. If someone/anyone agrees. Great, if they don't that is between them and their God.

No one let alone me has asked you to shut up.

Edited September 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Cobalt-70]

While I haven't followed the thread at all, technically the government could tax a church whether or not it engaged in any form of political activity. It has merely become a choice of the United States not to tax churches because we, as a society, have decided them to be generally beneficial and not to discourage their proliferation because of taxation.

Right. We do not tax churches, but we do tax lobbyists and PACs. So when a church starts acting like a lobbyist or a PAC, we (in theory) tax them too. And a lobbying or political organization cannot call itself a church to get around IRS regulations.

[USU78]

USU78:

Do you even read what I post?

No one is denying you the right to speak in or out of church on any subject you like. What we can not do is force others to believe as we do. That is in our Articles of Faith.

I don't even know what the DNC platform is, and couldn't care less in any event. As I have already said I'm not a member of any political party. Further if anything I agree more with the Green Party platform, but even there I have disagreements. But for your and my edification here is what Sen Durbin said

Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., in an interview with Fox News, vigorously rejected criticism of the platform, and said both parties are "devoted to this country" and "God-fearing" and urged people to move on.

"Those of us who believe in God and those of us who have dedicated our lives to helping others in the name of God don't want to take a second seat to anyone who is suggesting that one word out of the platform means the Democrats across America are godless," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz25cqVtlEe

I've neither ever advocated for nor endorsed in any way the expulsion of religious ideas from the public square. What I have advocated for and endorsed is that public policy be geared towards the secular and not the sectarian.

My religion is of my concern and is between me and my God. It is not a concern of anyone else. I can teach, preach, expound, and exhort to my hearts content. If someone/anyone agrees. Great, if they don't that is between them and their God.

No one let alone me has asked you to shut up.

The anti-Prop-8 folks sure have. The ERA folks still do. They do not want Mormons speaking. They want us silenced in the public square. Nearly every apostate thinks the same thing. And, no offense, the DNC's platform is friendly to all of the above except for Mormons corporate and individually.

McCain-Feingold sought to limit, and therefore silence, everybody but DNC friendly institutions.

IRS regulations seek to limit, and therefore silence, all religions . . . except for traditionally black churches and a few others.

I don't want my Church silenced on matters of corporate interest.

I don't want religionists mocked and spat on and excluded from public debate.

I do want to keep speaking.

And most of all, I don't want the State to try to destroy unpopular religions because of their audacity or in spite of it.

[USU78]

Right. We do not tax churches, but we do tax lobbyists and PACs. So when a church starts acting like a lobbyist or a PAC, we (in theory) tax them too. And a lobbying or political organization cannot call itself a church to get around IRS regulations.

If you cannot do the one without doing the other, then you're doing it wrong.

[Cobalt-70]

You misunderstand what taxing is. It is the assertion of control over something or someone, such that you have the power to destroy that something or someone. The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause together prohibit gov'ts' involvement in religion and religious practice. If the gov't elects to tax the religion or regulate the religious practice, it exercises potentially destructive power over the religion, which power it lacks.

If it exercises that power, the constitutional prohibition on that power notwithstanding, then it acts as tyrant.

Nobody seriously questions the right of the government to tax churches. The 16th Amendment grants the federal government the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived...." Also, there has always been a recognized right of states to levy property taxes on churches, although all states have had exemptions in place since the early 1800s.

[USU78]

Nobody seriously questions the right of the government to tax churches. The 16th Amendment grants the federal government the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived...." Also, there has always been a recognized right of states to levy property taxes on churches, although all states have had exemptions in place since the early 1800s.

You plainly know nothing of McCullough v. Maryland and what it means in this context.

[thesometimesaint]

UISU78:

Am I missing something?

[A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so ... is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality....

[Ares]

Please keep this thread non-partisan. (Pun intended).

[mnn727]

In the early 2000's Church meetings in Texas at the direction of Area 70 were used to rally members to write their respective State Rep. to vote in favor of a bill defining marriage as "one man, one woman".

That is correct. They read a couple of letters over the pulpit - I always tuned them out, not because I am against it. I just don't think political issues should be in Church at all.

The Bishop had to get up with a disclaimer about partisan politics after a members Testimony last Sunday (a former Bishop and current High Counselor who should have known better) Church is NOT a place for partisan political discussions - PERIOD!

Edited September 5, 2012 by mnn727

[Mark Beesley]

Citizens United was not about 501©3 tax exempt organizations.

Are you sure? Cause I think Citizens United was a non-profit . . . I haven't looked at the decision in a while.

[Cobalt-70]

You plainly know nothing of McCullough v. Maryland and what it means in this context.

I'm well aware of McCullough v. Maryland, and how that 1819 case relates to the 16th Amendment (1913) granting Congress the power to lay taxes on income. McCullough means that Congress has very broad powers to define and implement things within its power, such as income taxes. By the principles laid out by Justice Marshall in McCullough, the power of Congress to implement the IRS and allow the IRS to revoke a church's tax-exempt status for acting like a lobbying company or a PAC is beyond question.

You are misinterpreting this case's language about "power to destroy." The Court held that Maryland could not tax the national bank because of the Supremacy Clause, under the rationale that the power to tax is a power to interfere and to act hostile to the supreme powers of the federal government given it by the Constitution. Therefore, the states had no such power to tax federal institutions, because of the Supremacy Clause.

Also, that even if there were some First Amendment problem with taxing churches (which there is not), the broad 16th Amendment power was ratified after the 1st Amendment, and therefore controls to the extent there would be any conflict.

[DavidB]

Are you sure? Cause I think Citizens United was a non-profit . . . I haven't looked at the decision in a while.

Citizens United is a 501©(4). The LDS Church is a 501©(3)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Again, the church's involvement in moral issues is not the argument. It's the church's involvement in ballot measures that is the concern.

The church is free to teach any type of morality that it chooses, and is expected to be involved in teaching their version of morality. However, when they give instructions on how one should vote with regard to state-sponsored ballot initiatives, the church has overstepped it tax-exempt boundaries.

In the end, I just find it highly humorous, personally. That a church as proud of it's high moral character as the LDS church is, would have to remind it's members, from the pulpit, how to vote on a "moral" issue such as same-sex marriage, is just laughable to me.

Maybe reading the OP and watching the video would help...makes mention of both.

[Nofear]

FYI: The IRS's tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations

In particular section 5 is relevant to Cobalt-70's advocacy. Good luck proving "substantial" though.

[USU78]

UISU78:

Am I missing something?

[A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so ... is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality....

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

This is why there are tax-"free" municipal bonds: the Fed has no power/jurisdiction to tax the states, including individuals who invest in the state by buying the bonds of the state and its political subdivisions: the SCOTUS concluded in that case that since taxing a revenue stream of the State at the source (the individual) was tantamount to taxing the State, and since the Fed cannot constitutionally tax (because by doing so it potentially could destroy) a constituent entity, the Fed cannot tax the individual.

It's not like these concepts are all that difficult.

This is why donations to Churches are not taxed: taxing the source of the Church's revenue stream is the same as taxing the Church, and if you tax the Church, you have the power, potentially, to destroy the Church. This the Fed may/must not do.

And if the Fed seeks to limit the Church's ability to do what Churches do, including speaking out/participating in the political process when it comes to matters of interest to the Church, the Fed acts outside its limited powers, powers limited by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the Ist Amendment.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not so sure what is hard to follow here. Well done.

[DavidB]

Congress, by Divine creation, was given the power to tax. Nothing other than Common Law keeps religions from being taxed. Read the case of Bob Jones University it was tax exempt and it was taxed, that case set precedent for taxing Churches.

[USU78]

Congress, by Divine creation, was given the power to tax. Nothing other than Common Law keeps religions from being taxed. Read the case of Bob Jones University it was tax exempt and it was taxed, that case set precedent for taxing Churches.

Yeah . . . it did. And it was wrongly done.

And after Citizens United, I don't see anything other than a Progressive-dominated Court upholding a challenge against it.

[Sleeper Cell]

I'm well aware of McCullough v. Maryland, and how that 1819 case relates to the 16th Amendment (1913) granting Congress the power to lay taxes on income. McCullough means that Congress has very broad powers to define and implement things within its power, such as income taxes. By the principles laid out by Justice Marshall in McCullough, the power of Congress to implement the IRS and allow the IRS to revoke a church's tax-exempt status for acting like a lobbying company or a PAC is beyond question.

You are misinterpreting this case's language about "power to destroy." The Court held that Maryland could not tax the national bank because of the Supremacy Clause, under the rationale that the power to tax is a power to interfere and to act hostile to the supreme powers of the federal government given it by the Constitution. Therefore, the states had no such power to tax federal institutions, because of the Supremacy Clause.

Also, that even if there were some First Amendment problem with taxing churches (which there is not), the broad 16th Amendment power was ratified after the 1st Amendment, and therefore controls to the extent there would be any conflict.

Nobody seriously questions the right of the government to tax churches. The 16th Amendment grants the federal government the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived...." Also, there has always been a recognized right of states to levy property taxes on churches, although all states have had exemptions in place since the early 1800s.

If the power to tax the national bank is “the power to destroy" it, why doesn’t it follow that the power to tax a church is the “power to destroy" that church?”

I never took seriously the rhetoric that legalizing gay marriage could lead to the government forcing the LDS church to conduct gay marriages. However, if the 16th amendment trumps the 1st amendment “to the extent there is any conflict,” what is to prevent the federal government from heavily taxing the Church, unless it agrees to stop discriminating against gay couples who want to be married in the Temple(or, for that matter, agrees to stop discriminating on the basis of gender when extending calls to the priesthood)?

Incidentally, IIRC, the right to levy property taxes on a church is based on the assumption that taxes on property are (theoretically) related to the costs incurred by local governments to provide services to the property. In California, it is not unusual to levy per-parcel taxes (even on churches) for such things as fire protection and road maintenance.

[Cobalt-70]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

This is why there are tax-"free" municipal bonds: the Fed has no power/jurisdiction to tax the states, including individuals who invest in the state by buying the bonds of the state and its political subdivisions: the SCOTUS concluded in that case that since taxing a revenue stream of the State at the source (the individual) was tantamount to taxing the State, and since the Fed cannot constitutionally tax (because by doing so it potentially could destroy) a constituent entity, the Fed cannot tax the individual.

What? Are we still talking about McCulloch v. Maryland? That's not at all what the case said. Not even close. McCulloch said that a state could not tax the federal bank, because of the Supremacy Clause. The federal government can certainly tax an individual, especially after the 16 Amendment was ratified. In fact, the federal government can even tax state employees.

This is why donations to Churches are not taxed: taxing the source of the Church's revenue stream is the same as taxing the Church, and if you tax the Church, you have the power, potentially, to destroy the Church. This the Fed may/must not do.

No. The federal government would be well within its constitutional powers to tax donations to churches. It just chooses not to, under the theory that charitable donations are a public good. The federal government could even directly tax the churches if it wanted to. Read the 16th Amendment.

[Cobalt-70]

If the power to tax the national bank is “the power to destroy" it, why doesn’t it follow that the power to tax a church is the “power to destroy" that church?”

The federal government has power to "destroy" church property and money, but not the religion itself. The federal government has free rein to tax a church--like any individual or a corporation--consistent with the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Takings clauses of the 5th Amendment. The federal government could, for example, destroy a church and build an interstate highway in its place, as long as it provided compensation. But that doesn't affect the religion itself. It could also tax, and even tax heavily, just as it taxes corporations and individuals, as long as all religions are taxed by the same rules, which are fair and non-discriminatory. The only reason why taxation was an issue in McCulloch was because of the Supremacy Clause. A state cannot interfere with a federal institution.

I never took seriously the rhetoric that legalizing gay marriage could lead to the government forcing the LDS church to conduct gay marriages. However, if the 16th amendment trumps the 1st amendment “to the extent there is any conflict,” what is to prevent the federal government from heavily taxing the Church, unless it agrees to stop discriminating against gay couples who want to be married in the Temple(or, for that matter, agrees to stop discriminating on the basis of gender when extending calls to the priesthood)?

This is not mere taxation. This is regulation directed at religious exercise, and the 1st Amendment would still apply, in my view.