David Gould

Over on the Baptist Board, a christian presented the idea that giving churches tax free status provided them with a disincentive to become involved in politics because to do so risked the loss of that status.

His point was that if a church was allowed to endorse candidates it could easily control local elections.

He did say that of course this happens anyway but at least the church who does this can be challenged and runs the risk of bankruptcy due to back taxes, which happened to a church he named.

What do people think about this idea?

Toto

Did he think this was good or bad?

Most honest church people want to see the church kept out of politics to keep the church for dirtying itself with the compromises that are necessary for politics.

It is now illegal is for a church to use its tax exempt status to funnel untaxed money into politics. It is not illegal for ministers to run for office, or for church members to organize outside of church for political purposes.

If the ban on churches being involved in politics were lifted, you would probably see a lot of churches taken over by political machines.

David Gould

He thought this was a good thing.

As the tax free status is directly linked to being apolitical, keeping churches tax free is an important defence for the separation of church and state.

Or is there something I am missing?

Toto

We have one poster here who has argued that all non-profits, including churches, should be allowed to be involved in politics.

There's currently a bill in Congress to allow churches (but not other non-profits) to be political (<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000157" target="_blank">this thread</a>)

There is more about this issue, including its history in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000055" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

The law keeping churches out of politics was actually an accident: from a New York Times article quoted in the last thread:

Oresta

It's an interesting issue. While non-profits cannot endorse or support political candidates, they are allowed to advocate on issues, which may well be political. A classic example is a Catholic archdioses financially supporting and publically endorsing a voucher election proposal.

If the ban on churches being involved in politics were lifted, you would probably see a lot of churches taken over by political machines.

Some churches, for all virtual purposes, are political machines or a significant presence in political machines at the ward/precinct level. They are also a significant lobby presence in legislatures. Who do you think is responsible for blue laws and dry counties?

In short, churches - as is the case in all formal institutions - are political.

But they get a free ride where other non-profits do not. They pay no property taxes. A non-profit shelter for battered women does. I see no merit in the argument for the non-profit status of chuches ensuring they be apolitical. I also see no merit in allowing a minister to live in a tax-exempt house.

Peregrine

Religous organizations which are looking to be politically active see an advantage even greater that being able to support candidates. Its money. If this bill passess they will be able to contribute to candidates, national parties, and PACs. People will contribute to churches, tax deductable and anonymous, who in turn will donate soft money to the parties. But of course they will keep some of this money for operating expenses. The Christian Coalition stands to make millions off of this bill.