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
More and more I think of myself as a guerrilla warrior against my own government.
If, as I think most of us agree, that the leftist culture (including the government, media, academia et. al.) is at war with us, then it behooves us to fight that war with whatever resources we have available. In that sense take whatever benefit, subsidy or credit they offer you, and use them for your own purposes. Never let them compromise your message. Never grow dependent on these things because they will be taken away.
I’ve been thinking this way about a lot more of politics than the culture wars lately.
You’ve just touched on the #1 problem of our tax system: the definition of income and the myriad of deductions, exemptions and yes, benefits, that get applied to it. Regardless, I think whether or not it’s a benefit is beside the point. Going back to my SS example if I want to receive benefits then I agree to abide to the laws that govern it. So it is with 501C3 status. That status comes bundled with present and future gov’t stipulations. If churches are unwilling/unable to abide by them then they shouldn’t be applying for the exemption.
Yes – agree -that’s why changing our current laws is stupid. Not about transgenders….
Or, the stipulations imposed shouldn’t violate other constitutional rights at the same time. Also, as a preferential matter, the stipulations shouldn’t be extraneous to the purpose of the provision to begin with.
One of those stipulations says something about establishment of religion. I’m fairly certain.
Another forbids “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Yep. Because in their brazen attempts at restricting the “free exercise thereof” they have in fact established one also … aka Atheism.
Jamie, is that a serious comment?
If so, then establishment would be stipulating that one must be part of a religion in order to utilize a provision of the law. Simply refraining from discriminating based on religion is not the same as establishing.
Well, but leave room for nuance. They have not actually established Atheism.
What they have done is established a State Moral Code, which divides religions into two classes. There are the acceptable religions that do not make moral claims that conflict with the State Morality, and then there are the second-class religions that do make moral claims that conflict with the State Morality.
Leading the list of acceptable religions are agnosticism, Atheism, Universalism. Also included are all the syncretistic religions and all the religions that are so theologically liberal that they do not provide any fixed moral standards. So, “California Buddhism” is acceptable, but traditional Asian Buddhisms may not be. Likewise, this divides the Christian left from the Christian right. So, people who thought of themselves as theological conservatives but political liberals are now either pushed into an outgroup or else they have to switch to a more theologically liberal religion in order to stay with their political ingroup.
I agree and it would be nice if that were the case but it’s not the reality. My point here is largely observational. Accepting “stuff” (benefits, exempt status, whatever) from the government comes with strings attached. There are already a substantial set of rules that come with 501(c)(3) status. Churches shouldn’t be surprised when more are imposed and my $.02 worth of advice to them is if they are truly concerned about more government meddling in their affairs then they would be well advised to distance themselves from any acceptance of government largess, real or perceived, and that includes 501 status.
501 means tax-exempt, right?
You consider tax exemption a form of government largess?
The question isn’t who owns the money, the question is who owns the strings attached to it.
I followed the links, too. Alliance Defending Freedom does not exaggerate. There’s more than one troubling thing in the pamphlet — read it yourself — but here’s the relevant clause. It’s talking about the restroom policy:
There is no way to read this except as requiring a Christian school to allow a middle-school boy to use the girl’s restroom. And there’s no way whatsoever that policy is consistent with any honest reading of the 1st amendment.
The pamphlet does have a disclaimer:
So it is not clear whether this is really the law in Iowa. But it is unquestionably an invitation by this bureaucracy to someone to go file a lawsuit against some church.
Based on Hosanna-Tabor, I think even the current Supreme Court would dismiss such a lawsuit. But I am not sure.
Yes.
Should the proceeds from a lemonade sale given to a different charitable organization be taxable?
Is the lemonade stand a church?
Edit: OK, I think I understand the point here. Yes, if the church conducting the sale wants to avoid the stipulations that come with 501 status then they will subject the proceeds from the sale to taxes at the regular rate.
Why?
A reasonable enough thing to say, but it misses the point altogether.
If tax exemption is government largess, then you should just say “Yes” and stop there.
Why?
Well, you said that tax exemption is government largess.
It follows that the government has a legitimate claim on those (possible or actual) taxes.
It follows that the money from which those taxes come (or would come) is taxable.
I’m not so much concerned with the legitimacy issue as whether or not you’re getting preferential treatment (a form of largess). My point is don’t apply for the preferential treatment if you can’t/won’t abide by the 500 pages of regulation that go along with it.
The lemonade stand doesn’t need to be religious in nature. I was envisioning the kids on the block and their parents just trying to help someone in need. Should they be taxed on the proceeds of their lemonade sale if it’s given to a public good? Should they be taxed if they only do this once?
My point was less about applying for a status and what people should be expected to do to get that status, and it was more about exploring how exemption counts as government largesse. I’m trying to get at what you think should be the case. We do have an income tax so does that mean that we should define income in the broadest way possible? Should we refrain from recognizing exceptions on the basis that fairness demands that everyone pays no matter what and that exceptions are just government meddling? Describing an exemption as largesse implies to me that you think the answers are yes and yes.
Preferential compared to what? Let’s compare like to like; I get the feeling you’re not allowing for any distinctions. Is charitable lemonade sale activity the same as selling cartons of lemonade for the benefit of the lemonade producers? Is taking donations for our block party the same as taking money (which I’ll keep) in exchange for entertainment I provide?
Then there’s the distinction between encouragement and punishment
Then there’s the distinction between qualifications relevant to the purpose of the exemption vs qualifications irrelevant of the purpose of the exemption.
Another argument for eliminating corporate income tax….keep your filthy hands off our churches.
501 status exempts *all* income, not just charitable giving, as long as you meet the requirements of the law. That’s the preferential treatment.
Either way, it’s a human rights violation.
Jolly good.
In the first place, a similar argument applies:
(1) Tax exemption is preferential treatment. (2) So the charitable donation of lemonade stand profits is the same as any other money. (3) Other money is taxable. (4) So the charitable donation of lemonade stand profits is taxable.
So it still seems to me that, since you accept that first premise, an unqualified say “Yes” to the question about the charitable donation of lemonade stand profits would have been accurate.
In the second place, and more importantly, while I’m happy to call preferential treatment a form of government largess, a new question replaces my question from # 137:
Why do you consider tax exemption for charitable and religious enterprises to be a form of preferential treatment?
Reti, it’s a stinker, no question about it. I read it; I think it’s laughably badly phrased, because I doubt that anybody who’d work for this council or commission would ever realize that “service” has two meanings. The nannying tone of this document, which wouldn’t have passed muster in NYC at the height of the Disco Era, makes it rejectable. But to see in this a license to control religious content isn’t a reasonable outcome of what this thing actually says or does.
I’m still all in on the Hank Rhody bet.
This has been one of the less radioactive SSM-ish threads in a while. To keep the flames low, I haven’t responded to every single disagreement; I figure you know where I stand, and I have no trouble figuring out where most of you do.