Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Stand in Iowa
I suppose we could at least say “We told you so,” though I fear the phrase has lost the sense of smug, self-satisfaction it had when we were younger. Now, I once again see myself empathizing with Jeremiah, who had to constantly tell the people of Jerusalem how bad things would get while competing with many false prophets, even as things went exactly as Jeremiah predicted.
If anything, the current situation in Iowa only confirms what had been long predicted: The government — through bureaucracy and extralegal panels — has moved to compel religious organizations (including churches) to comply with the new progressive political morality. The religious concession supposedly in the laws isn’t even that, as a government hostile to religion and religious thought is now in the business of deciding what constitutes a legitimate religion. The more vocal and aggressive wing of the LGBT movement controls both that movement as well as the media. They will suffer no opposition, and require endorsement. Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
The [Iowa Civil Rights Commission] is interpreting a state law to ban churches from expressing their views on human sexuality if they would “directly or indirectly” make “persons of any particular…gender identity” feel “unwelcome” in conjunction with church services, events, and other religious activities. The speech ban could be used to gag churches from making any public comments—including from the pulpit—that could be viewed as unwelcome to persons who do not identify with their biological sex. This is because the commission says the law applies to churches during any activity that the commission deems to not have a “bona fide religious purpose.” Examples the commission gave are “a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public,” which encompasses most events that churches hold.
The live-and-let-live crowd was either dangerously naïve or dishonest from the get-go. The progressives had no intention of allowing anyone to think other than how they required. When progressives hold power, they are the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong, of who is innocent and who is guilty. The fact that the church yields to an authority greater than Man is unacceptable. First, society must yield to progressive moral pressure, then the schools, and now the church. Soon, the family will follow, losing any rights before an ever-expanding progressive state.
Religious liberty is now where we stand, and the progressives are acting the aggressors.
Published in Law
Except that tax exempt status isn’t about government money. Rather it’s about recognizing 1) that income tax isn’t meant to apply to accumulations of capital for social purposes and 2) that without tax exempt status then even informal organizations like our block party committee or the local boy scout lemonade sale for benefit of St. Jude’s or whatever would be subject to income tax. The idea was that only business/profit-seeking type income should be taxable.
We have never had an open gay person want to join our church. There is a vow of membership that includes acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant Word of G-d, and the Lutheran Book of Concord as the correct explanations of scripture, and renounces teachings that contradict our doctrines.
All gay persons are welcome to participate in the full life of the church, as are all visitors. We have worship, Sunday school, many Bible classes, gatherings for meals, social activities and sports, a full calendar of ministry opportunities and servant events, and evangelism activities. These are all fun, though some are a lot of work. Membership is not required for any of those; they are free, though we frequently ask for offerings to defray costs.
Communion is offered at worship to all visitors who profess a likeminded view of the Eucharist, and who express this to one of our Pastors or Elders. We take it seriously, but gently.
The only thing that you gain with membership is an obligation to serve. When you join you will be asked to help prepare for the various events, to attend congregational meetings, to serve on a committee of the Council, or take an office on the Council. We are constantly encouraging our members to help shoulder the burden of keeping the doors open.
Amazon’s business model is based on not turning a profit and simply increasing shareholder value. What do we do about that?
The government should treat all organizations equally regardless of their “purpose” given that all organizations at some level serve a societal purpose. My preference is to not tax any organization at all, simply tax individuals. But if we are going to tax organizations then we should tax all organizations.
I hate to bring this up, but…
Were you aware that, back in the 1960s, there were people who were very convinced that black people were the descendants of Ham, who was cursed by Noah? And that, since they were cursed by Noah, that that story gave them all the theology they need to justify segregation?
Do you realize that there are people at the ACLU who, rightly or wrongly, equate thoughts like yours with the thinking described above?
The thing about tax exemptions for churches is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. What do you think would happen to traditionalist Christian churches in blue cities in blue states? Right, they would soon look like dhimmi gatherings in Muslim lands.
Our founders understood this and from our early days preserved the principle that the churches were not subordinated to the governing authorities.
In order for shareholder value to increase the business activity must turn a profit. Whether the profit is distributed to owners or sunk back into the business as investment is beside the point.
An excellent article.
I can’t like this statement enough.
The anti-segregationists were also motivated by Christian teachings derived from the Bible. It would have been better to let them win through persuasion rather than entangling the government in religion.
The ACLU is actively opposing my religion and seeks to Establish a public square of America that is free of any religion that makes moral claims. They are in league with the Enemy and should be fought with vigor.
In order to provide services to the community a Church must turn a profit. Whether that profit is distributed to clergy or parishioners or sunk back into the community as investment/charity is beside the point.
Side Note: I will say that I’ve appreciated Libertarians more being on Ricochet, both to better understand their position and to see we’re on the same side more often than not.
As noted, I think this has been a problem as well, and I think progressives are trying to chip away at tax exemption status thinking this will further their goals, but I highly suspect they will be surprised at what follows.
The government should never have taken up charity work. It was do-gooder progressives who decided that the churches weren’t doing enough. Rather than support and promote the social service ministries of the churches, they set up government programs to take over social services. Then they proved so incompetent and inefficient at it that they started contracting these services out to the churches.
Now we see the blue states kicking the churches out of social service contracts. They will find that the services suffer, the people who most need these services suffer, and their communities suffer. But they can feel good that they kicked those nasty theocratic church people out of the government programs.
Not sure what your point is here or how it’s responsive to the post you’re quoting.
If they want to eliminate church tax exempt status, we need to revisit the tax exempt status of all ‘non profits’ that service the needs and interests of sub-sets of people as well. Lets open it all up!
And … let’s start with the corrupt Clinton “Foundation”!
I like the way you think!
Fine by me.
Yeah. The distinction is between those whose purpose is business or profit for direct/specific owners versus accummulation of capital for non-business/individual profit purposes. Amazon is in business to make money for its shareholders direct benefit. Churches and charitable organizations don’t have shareholders even.
There is no curse on Ham. Lies about the Bible should not be counted in the same category as true Biblical teaching.
I don’t think any of this is relevant. The issue is if you’re going to apply for a special tax status then you’re going to have to play by the government’s rules. If churches don’t agree with the rules then don’t apply for the benefit.
So is “profit” simply the accumulation of more resources than are used? With Amazaon there is a direct and immediate economic exchange resulting in either profit, loss, or breakeven. With charitable organizations there is no direct and immediate economic exchange to which the framework of profit/loss can be applied. To the extent that tax exempt entities engage in business activities not directly related to their charitable purpose then profit from that activity will be taxable (with exceptions and caveats).
No argument with MJBubba intended. He’s correct.
There is however one thing that needs to be clearly understood by the Church, and cannot be repeated often or emphatically enough:
God does not need a tax break.
Taking advantage of the same tax provisions to which anyone else is entitled is not applying for a benefit. It’s equal protection of the law while maintaining the constitutional right to remain free from laws abridging the free exercise of one’s religion.
If you’re opposed to the concept of tax exempt status then I’ll disagree but at least I understand. However, as long as such a status exists then it’s not a benefit so much as a clarification of what the income tax is meant to be applied to.
Churches losing their 501c3 status, and pastors losing their tax breaks will be problematic.
Financially problematic for the churches and pastors.
Culturally problematic for the communities they serve.
That said, God does not need a tax break or a subsidy. The Church will prevail through this present dark age as it has prevailed through dark ages in the past.
Churches and pastors losing their tax breaks would actually be beneficial in at least two ways:
Everyone can potentially receive Social Security. Is SS not a benefit?
This is one of those moments when Ricochet makes me happy.
Actually I think this is a terrific idea! All churches won’t do it (although they should) but uniting under a banner that protests this totalitarian action is a great idea. I’m cheering them on!
It’s taking me a bit of effort not to respond to this in a sarcastic and condescending manner.
I’m not the one you’re trying to convince. The comment I made was with respect to dog-piling Mr. McVey. Now, if we’re gonna fight this war we ought to be convincing liberty-minded people of the justness of our cause. I’m convinced that should Mr. McVey witness a church forced to close it’s doors over this issue he will be persuaded that we are in fact on the side of liberty. In the meantime I don’t think badgering him will endear him to our cause.
Ok, SS is a benefit in most senses of the term.
Is accumulation of resources for no one’s direct benefit the same as income? Is the ability to deduct business expenses from business income a benefit? I suppose in some sense it is, but as a practical matter that’s simply a distinction as to what counts as income and what counts as taxable income. Most of my clients don’t view this as a benefit so much as a reasonable deduction to arrive at taxable income since a strong case can be made that net income is the only reasonable basis to which income tax should be applied.