You may have read my 5/15 post regarding Cambridge Drive Community Church's application for a permit to allow folk living in their vehicle to have safe parking in our parking lot. As I said before, the permit was granted and then appealed by some of the neighbors. Today was the appeal and the appeal was denied.
It wasn't my brightest moment though. As a few of our neighbors have spread misinformation regarding the program and others have implied that they have final say over the shape Cambridge Drive's ministry should take I have gotten more and more frustrated. When it came my turn to speak, I was more than a little frustrated. I began by sharing that we are not participating in this program because it is a good thing to do, although it is. Instead, we are fulfilling our call. I outlined the Hebrew scriptures' injunctions to welcome the stranger and to care for the poor. I followed up with the affirmation that Jesus was homeless and we dare not exclude folk who are just like him. I should have stopped there. I ended by saying that the neighbors have no say in how we fulfill our ministry. Those in the audience arguing against the permit did not take that statement well.
While my wording was more incendiary than it needed to be, I believe that. Baptists practice a regenerate church membership so that only the folk who are actually in touch with the leading of the Spirit have a say in the directions of the ministry of the church. I also believe that because of the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment the city government has no say in how we fulfill our ministry. Yes, I know the courts have struggled with that clause since the 1870's when they ruled against polygamy and said that there was a difference between belief and action and that the state could restrict certain actions... In the 60's the Warren court established that a compelling interest must be demonstrated before the government can restrict religious practice but the definition of compelling has wavered through the years. Still, the scriptures are clear that if this is our calling we are obligated to fulfill our call rather than please our neighbors or obey civil authorities.
Of course, it is not that simple. CDCC has been a part of this neighborhood from its beginnings and has always sought to be hospitable to our neighbors. We have over 2 acres of "park" that our neighbors use for walking their dogs, for picnics, and as a shortcut through the neighborhood. We host recitals, concerts, 12 step programs, classes through the county adult ed programs, boyscouts, and senior citizens groups in our buildings... our properties are used, primarily by community folk, almost all of the time. We want to be friends with our neighbors. In this process we tried to listen to their concerns and to address those that were reasonable and correct those that were not while fulfilling the ministry to which we have been called. Our attempts did not allay the concerns of the most vocal and I have to admit, they hooked me.
The ruling today can also be appealed and I assume it will be so we'll face this again... I'll try to be a bit more temperate. One piece that has been positive through this is that a number of neighbors have reached out to voice support. A number who were against the program have changed their minds once they received accurate information. On we go...
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tax Exempt Status & Separation of Church & State
Over the past few years there has been a good deal of discussion regarding the tax exempt status of churches. The question came to the forefront when a number of conservative churches decided to challenge current law and publicly endorse candidates in both the '08 and '10 elections. They are framing the argument as a constitutional one. They are correct and they should win the argument.
I've heard many people argue that tax exemption is a benefit given by the government and the price for that benefit is the inability to make official endorsement of candidates or to lobby in a substantive way. Jim Evans in Ethics Daily goes on to argue that the genesis of tax exempt status of churches goes back to the days when churches were part of the state and it made sense that a municipality would not tax its own property. He sees this as an argument that the benefit is just that and that in order to enjoy the exemption, churches must "play by the rules." That this argument is irrelevant seems obvious to me. However the practice began, we have not had state sponsored or owned churches since the founding of the country. So what happened? At the adoption of the Bill of Rights, they forgot to tax the newly emancipated properties? Sorry, there must be some other justification that the tax exempt status was retained.
Then, there is the prohibition itself. Churches were allowed to endorse candidates until 1954. In that year, then senator Lyndon Johnson introduced a law prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing political candidates. At the height of the McCarthy era, he was trying to silence some of his critics as he ran for office. It was only by coincidence that churches were silenced as they fell under the same IRS code as his nonprofit enemies.
While it is accurate that churches receive their tax exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code, I would argue that churches are not the same as other nonprofit organizations and in the end cannot be treated the same way. Other non-profits receive tax benefits because they provide needed services to the community. The issue is clearly seen as one of public benefit. It is a quid pro quo... the nonprofit provides services so the state helps it by removing the burden of taxes and provides that contributions are deductible on the giver's taxes. Nonprofits do not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, religious institutions fall under the First Amendment and the relationship between the state and religion is clearly and uniquely defined. The government does not give benefits to a religious group. There would be no constitutional justification for an act like that. They are tax exempt because they are religious organizations. period. The first amendment provides that the government will neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
Here is where the question of taxes comes in. The power to tax is the power to control. If the government can levy taxes on religious institutions and decide what those taxes will be, they can decide which institutions will be viable. Frankly, if the little church I serve had to pay property taxes, we would likely close. How can that not be prohibiting free exercise? And isn't telling a congregation that it cannot speak on any issue defining its ministry for it, again prohibiting free exercise? To allow that a church can say whatever it wants so long as it is willing to give up its tax exempt status establishes a multi-tiered system for religious institutions with some being able to speak and others not, this time based on their financial ability to pay taxes. Again, we are seeing free exercise attacked.
We must not forget that taxes and tax benefits have often been used as tools of influence by the state. How often does a municipality give tax benefits to entice a company to re-locate? To use this part of the IRS code to silence religious organizations from speaking on issues that they clearly see as part of their call is an example of the state using the tax code to prohibit free exercise of religion. What would stop a community from using taxes, if it were allowed to tax religious organizations, to keep a mosque from being constructed? Or a religious building of any sort that was seen as offensive to the powers that be?
There is no argument for taxing religious institutions or for prohibiting them from speaking on any issue in any way they believe their faith calls them to speak that does not conflict with the First Amendment. The government has no right to tax churches and therefor tax exemption is not a benefit the government can bestow or withdraw. That some religious organization will speak out in ways that you or I don't appreciate on political issues is part of the price we pay for religious freedom.
I've heard many people argue that tax exemption is a benefit given by the government and the price for that benefit is the inability to make official endorsement of candidates or to lobby in a substantive way. Jim Evans in Ethics Daily goes on to argue that the genesis of tax exempt status of churches goes back to the days when churches were part of the state and it made sense that a municipality would not tax its own property. He sees this as an argument that the benefit is just that and that in order to enjoy the exemption, churches must "play by the rules." That this argument is irrelevant seems obvious to me. However the practice began, we have not had state sponsored or owned churches since the founding of the country. So what happened? At the adoption of the Bill of Rights, they forgot to tax the newly emancipated properties? Sorry, there must be some other justification that the tax exempt status was retained.
Then, there is the prohibition itself. Churches were allowed to endorse candidates until 1954. In that year, then senator Lyndon Johnson introduced a law prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing political candidates. At the height of the McCarthy era, he was trying to silence some of his critics as he ran for office. It was only by coincidence that churches were silenced as they fell under the same IRS code as his nonprofit enemies.
While it is accurate that churches receive their tax exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code, I would argue that churches are not the same as other nonprofit organizations and in the end cannot be treated the same way. Other non-profits receive tax benefits because they provide needed services to the community. The issue is clearly seen as one of public benefit. It is a quid pro quo... the nonprofit provides services so the state helps it by removing the burden of taxes and provides that contributions are deductible on the giver's taxes. Nonprofits do not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, religious institutions fall under the First Amendment and the relationship between the state and religion is clearly and uniquely defined. The government does not give benefits to a religious group. There would be no constitutional justification for an act like that. They are tax exempt because they are religious organizations. period. The first amendment provides that the government will neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
Here is where the question of taxes comes in. The power to tax is the power to control. If the government can levy taxes on religious institutions and decide what those taxes will be, they can decide which institutions will be viable. Frankly, if the little church I serve had to pay property taxes, we would likely close. How can that not be prohibiting free exercise? And isn't telling a congregation that it cannot speak on any issue defining its ministry for it, again prohibiting free exercise? To allow that a church can say whatever it wants so long as it is willing to give up its tax exempt status establishes a multi-tiered system for religious institutions with some being able to speak and others not, this time based on their financial ability to pay taxes. Again, we are seeing free exercise attacked.
We must not forget that taxes and tax benefits have often been used as tools of influence by the state. How often does a municipality give tax benefits to entice a company to re-locate? To use this part of the IRS code to silence religious organizations from speaking on issues that they clearly see as part of their call is an example of the state using the tax code to prohibit free exercise of religion. What would stop a community from using taxes, if it were allowed to tax religious organizations, to keep a mosque from being constructed? Or a religious building of any sort that was seen as offensive to the powers that be?
There is no argument for taxing religious institutions or for prohibiting them from speaking on any issue in any way they believe their faith calls them to speak that does not conflict with the First Amendment. The government has no right to tax churches and therefor tax exemption is not a benefit the government can bestow or withdraw. That some religious organization will speak out in ways that you or I don't appreciate on political issues is part of the price we pay for religious freedom.
Friday, February 20, 2009
separation of church and state
I came across a group on Facebook today that is working to get the LDS Church stripped of its tax exempt status because of its support of Prop 8. The rumor is that over 50% of the money supporting Prop 8 came from the Mormons and letters were read in all of the churches in California encouraging members to work, volunteer, and give in support of the proposition.
I'm not fond of the idea that the Mormons may have pushed that terrible law onto the books in CA but I'm even less happy about the possibility of outside groups dictating the message or practice of any religious organization.
There are a number of arguments that should be addressed. Some say that tax exempt status is a privilege, gift, or benefit given to churches because they provide some benefit to the broader community and it comes with strings, including not being involved in politics in a substantial way. While that argument may fly for other 501 c3's, it doesn't fly for religious organizations. Religious groups are not taxed because the government has no say over them. The power to tax is the power to control and the state has no power when it comes to religion.
Others frame the tax exempt status as a subsidy to religious groups. While it is true that many religious organizations could not survive, at least in their current forms, if they had to pay taxes, again, this implies some gift that the government has the power to give or withhold from religious groups. It has no such power to give or to withhold.
A serious fallacy that is common in the US is the idea that religion is not supposed to be political. How can it not be if it is worth anything at all? If faith impacts an individual's values, is that not political? Doesn't that inform who we vote for and what ideas we support? If it impacts how they live their daily lives, is that not political? If religion speaks to what is important in life, is that not political? When we look at Jesus, the central metaphor for his ministry was a political one - the Kingdom of God. The history of social movements in the US is a history of religious groups acting politically whether it be the idea of religious freedom which found its strongest proponents in the Baptists and the Quakers, the elimination of slavery, women's rights, worker's rights, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement... none of those political movements would have existed without people of faith acting politically from a standpoint of their religion.
Now one might argue that it is OK for people of faith to act poltically as individuals but not as groups. That betrays a misunderstanding of the diversity of faith groups. That certainly fits in the free church tradition, in many threads in Judaism, and in a number of other faith traditions which emphasize the role of the individual in shaping their own faith. In other groups, such as Catholicism and the LDS on a global level and even some fundamentalist churches on a more local level, the shape of faith is dictated by a hierarchy that literally defines what is and is not orthodox and who is in or out of the flock. In those settings, a political directive makes sense. A bishop might reasonably tell all of the members of his diocese that to vote for a certain pro-choice candidate is to risk excommunication. Likewise an LDS leader might tell all of the faithful that support for prop 8 is required to be a Mormon in good standing (I don't know how the encouragement was framed so this is just an example). Or a fundamentalist pastor may tell his congregation that they must believe a certain way which must be reflected in a vote for or against a certain candidate. Such prescriptions are built into the religion.
As a pastor, I think it is stupid to try to tell people how they should vote or what political stances they should take. In this age of baptistification (google the term, used by Martin Marty in the 80's), I think even the connectional churches risk serious problems when they try to dictate the beliefs of their constituents. Still, it solidly fits in their traditions and for the government or the people to try to curtail that practice seems clearly to be in violation of the 1st Amendment in that it impedes the free exercise of that religion.
I'm not fond of the idea that the Mormons may have pushed that terrible law onto the books in CA but I'm even less happy about the possibility of outside groups dictating the message or practice of any religious organization.
There are a number of arguments that should be addressed. Some say that tax exempt status is a privilege, gift, or benefit given to churches because they provide some benefit to the broader community and it comes with strings, including not being involved in politics in a substantial way. While that argument may fly for other 501 c3's, it doesn't fly for religious organizations. Religious groups are not taxed because the government has no say over them. The power to tax is the power to control and the state has no power when it comes to religion.
Others frame the tax exempt status as a subsidy to religious groups. While it is true that many religious organizations could not survive, at least in their current forms, if they had to pay taxes, again, this implies some gift that the government has the power to give or withhold from religious groups. It has no such power to give or to withhold.
A serious fallacy that is common in the US is the idea that religion is not supposed to be political. How can it not be if it is worth anything at all? If faith impacts an individual's values, is that not political? Doesn't that inform who we vote for and what ideas we support? If it impacts how they live their daily lives, is that not political? If religion speaks to what is important in life, is that not political? When we look at Jesus, the central metaphor for his ministry was a political one - the Kingdom of God. The history of social movements in the US is a history of religious groups acting politically whether it be the idea of religious freedom which found its strongest proponents in the Baptists and the Quakers, the elimination of slavery, women's rights, worker's rights, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement... none of those political movements would have existed without people of faith acting politically from a standpoint of their religion.
Now one might argue that it is OK for people of faith to act poltically as individuals but not as groups. That betrays a misunderstanding of the diversity of faith groups. That certainly fits in the free church tradition, in many threads in Judaism, and in a number of other faith traditions which emphasize the role of the individual in shaping their own faith. In other groups, such as Catholicism and the LDS on a global level and even some fundamentalist churches on a more local level, the shape of faith is dictated by a hierarchy that literally defines what is and is not orthodox and who is in or out of the flock. In those settings, a political directive makes sense. A bishop might reasonably tell all of the members of his diocese that to vote for a certain pro-choice candidate is to risk excommunication. Likewise an LDS leader might tell all of the faithful that support for prop 8 is required to be a Mormon in good standing (I don't know how the encouragement was framed so this is just an example). Or a fundamentalist pastor may tell his congregation that they must believe a certain way which must be reflected in a vote for or against a certain candidate. Such prescriptions are built into the religion.
As a pastor, I think it is stupid to try to tell people how they should vote or what political stances they should take. In this age of baptistification (google the term, used by Martin Marty in the 80's), I think even the connectional churches risk serious problems when they try to dictate the beliefs of their constituents. Still, it solidly fits in their traditions and for the government or the people to try to curtail that practice seems clearly to be in violation of the 1st Amendment in that it impedes the free exercise of that religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
