Should Churches who engage in politics (hold a speaking event for a political candidate) lose their tax exempt status?

Question

Part of the reason Churches are tax exempt here in the US is because they are not supposed to engage in politics. Some churches are holding speaking events for political candidates, should they start paying taxes because they are choosing sides politically?
If we tax churches, especially mega churches where the pastors are living in multimillion dollar homes, we would have better federal funding & the deficit would shrink significantly.

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

Voted No, as the premise of the question is based on a misreading of the Constitution and American political culture generally. Indeed, the effect of deleting the tax exempt status would likely have the opposite effect of that which was intended.

To start, the Constitution forbids the "establishment" of religion nor interference in the free exercise thereof. The former part referring to making a religion or church an office of state. The contrast being with the United Kingdom, where HM the Queen is also head of the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 24 bishops of the Anglican Church sit, debate and vote, by right, in the House of Lords.

Suffice to say, as an institutional matter, that is alien to the American constitutional, legal and political tradition and is not really up for debate. Though it should be added that the integration of the institutions of the Anglican Church into the British "unwritten constitution" has hardly been a threat to political liberty - including freedom of religion - in that country. Indeed, if anything, British culture is more "secular" than its' American counterpart.

As far as removing the tax exempt status, the point of that status is to take the government out of religion, not take religion out of politics. Suffice to say, if the tax exempt status were eliminated, it would then be possible for the state to asses taxes against those religious institutions with whom the party in power did not find favor. Suffice to say, the potential consequences of that would be politically, legally, constitutionally and culturally explosive.

In effect, using state power to reward or punish religions according to whether or not they find favor with the state. This would immediately inject, in the most direct way possible, religion into the political and legal debate. The exact opposite of what the alleged reform intends.

The point of the "free exercise" clause is to allow those of faith to express their views in the public square and if those views find favor to express them in law. The point being that there is no expectation in the Constitution or in American political history that religious views are to be kept private and taken out of the political debate.

Indeed, it is well to recall that some of the greatest advances in civil rights came out of the churches. Particularly the African-American Baptist and Methodist churches. See also the REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Suffice to say, history would have been quite different had the state the power to suspend the means by which Dr. King made his living and his career by taxing it into oblivion - which the "Jim Crow" states of that time would have surely done had they had the constitutional authority to do so.

The bottom line, directly and indirectly, religion has a place in the cultural and political debate. To use the power of the state to tax that role gives the state the power to regulate that right and the result, far from being to secularize the culture and the political debate would, if anything, have the opposite effect.

legalboxers · Accepted Answer

separation between CHURCH and STATE Separation of Church and State is a phrase that refers to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase dates back to the early days of U. S. history, and Thomas Jefferson referred to the First Amendment as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state as the third president of the U. S. The term is also often employed in court cases. For example, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously stated in Everson v. Board of Education that “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state,” and “[t]hat wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

jshm2 · Answer

You're soft in the head, then, and need to check your head.

Universities, private non profits and charities too would then need to "lose status" for such a daft thing.

Also, you're wrong in your assertion. There is nothing about political standing or speaking events which would violate the laws regarding candidates. They just cannot directly back or be funded by the candidate, as it violates conflicts of interest legislature.

Most institutions accept talks and seminars - but not political campaigning - for this reason among many.

Also, no. Churches, synagogues, mosques etc do not even compare to the level of federal funding shortfall, and deficit, brought on by tax dodging billionaires and multi billion dollar corporations using tax havens.

USLegionary · Answer

Pastors, priests, clerics, rabbis, etc are allowed to express their political views just like everyone else. You aren't allowed to express your religious beliefs in state or federal buildings/property but most religious buildings have no rules/laws about expressing political beliefs in their buildings

Guy13 · Answer

Churches, that know what they are doing, do not have “speaking events”. They have visiting speakers who are often Pastors before politicians. Occasionally, a figure will drop by but not as a candidate fund-raising event.

Googlemyahoo · Answer

Well basically everyone who attends church are predominantly stupid people so they’re wasted votes.

DJB72 · Answer

Think about how much tax in the USA gets spent on its way machine. Most churches stop short of being outright pacifists but there's a huge space between pacifism and funding a legalised killing force.

joeldalton · Answer

you lefties are so upset you can’t get your hands on someone else’s money.

ArtemisSilver · Answer

It's on par with renting out a community center, hardly that big of a deal.

Jennz6 · Answer

No not at all

cloud9vortex1234 · Answer

You must hate Repulicans.

Should Churches who engage in politics (hold a speaking event for a political candidate) lose their tax exempt status?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should we allow churches to be tax free?

Should Churches who engage in politics (hold a speaking event for a political candidate) lose their tax exempt status?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should we allow churches to be tax free?

We're glad to see you liked this post.