The Separation of Church and State (1 Viewer)

[Maxp]

Driving back to south Alabama from Tennessee last Thanksgiving I was passed by a sheriff's deputy whose patrol vehicle had "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on the side. The labeling was as large, if not larger, than the word "POLICE." This happened in one of the northern counties, not sure which one. It was a surprisingly jarring moment for me. In my mind, this was screaming passed the line of separation of church and state. Then today, I noticed a local Baldwin County sheriff's department vehicle with the same phrase printed much smaller on the back of the patrol vehicle. My personal belief is that all such verbiage on public property should be removed, especially when it's on law enforcement vehicles.

 

[DaveXA]

Houses of worship actually get an even sweeter deal. They are automatically granted a tax-exempt status (while secular charities have to fill out paperwork to earn the designation) and they don’t have to fill out the Form 990 at all. (Church/state separation groups have argued that the government’s preferential treatment for houses of worship in that regard is unconstitutional.)

But plenty of conservative pastors still argue that these rules are too onerous and they’ve deliberately tried to goad the IRS into revoking their tax-exempt status just so they can file a lawsuit over it.

For several years during Barack Obama’s presidency, hundreds of evangelical churches participated in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” where they proudly endorsed Republican candidates and then, just to make sure their actions weren’t ignored, sent videos of those sermons directly to the IRS.

The IRS had every reason to take action and revoke the churches’ tax exemptions. They never did.

In fact, over the past few decades, the IRS has only followed its own rules once. Just before the 1992 elections, a group called Branch Ministries ran full-page newspaper ads urging people not to vote for Bill Clinton. The IRS revoked the group’s tax exempt status. There was a lawsuit. The IRS won. (The reporters also cite the Congressional Research Service in saying that another church lost its tax exemption in 2012… but no further details are available.)
That’s it. 70 years of the Johnson Amendment… and maybe two ministries that were punished by the IRS for violating it.

By the time Donald Trump was in office, the violations were even more egregious. There was no need for a concerted effort to endorse candidates because it was apparent to everyone that the IRS wasn’t going to punish pastors for telling church members how to vote. It didn’t help that Trump claimed he got rid of the Johnson Amendment… even though that was a lie. Churches have just been endorsing candidates ever since. (While some churches have also endorsed Democrats, this is overwhelmingly a conservative/Republican issue. They’re the ones with the most to lose if the Johnson Amendment was enforced.)

This is where yesterday’s article comes into play. Reporters Jeremy Schwartz and Jessica Priest attempted to get to the bottom of what the IRS is actually doing about these churches that violate the Johnson Amendment. What they discovered is that no one is minding the store.

At least not publicly.

They found 18 churches over the past two years explicitly violating the Johnson Amendment. (It’s almost certainly many, many more.) These are churches where the actions of the pastor weren’t at all ambiguous. If the IRS enforced its own rules, these churches would instantly lose their tax exemptions. None of them have, and that’s because the IRS doesn’t seem to care:


Why is the IRS acting like the CIA? Who knows. They’re saying they can’t confirm or deny investigations into churches that are openly and brazenly violating the law as if enforcing rules that were purposely broken amounts to some sort of national security issue.

It didn’t help that the IRS needed a high-level official signing off on such investigations for a while, and that no one was employed in that position, “leaving lower IRS employees to initiate church investigations.” Nor did it help that the IRS just stopped looking at churches’ political activity for several years during the Obama administration.

I can only state my personal anecdote when I was a minster myself and I had to file taxes like everyone else. Pastors and ministers can qualify for certain "benefits" like housing allowance and such, but they still have to file taxes and report income. I'm familiar with a local church (I won't name because people I know well continue to attend the church) who got audited and the pastor was arrested for fraud and the church basically had to fire their pastor. The church was allowed to continue with their tax exempt status but had to agree to future oversight. That was like 10 years ago. Idk what's happened since though.

As for them publicly endorsing political candidates, the IRS absolutely does need to enforce that law, but it's not that simple because churches will try to curry public sympathy by accusing the IRS of violating the separation of church and state.

I don't know where you draw the line though. If they're separate, they shouldn't be dealing with the IRS, but if the IRS is entangled with them because of rules violations, are they really separate?

My preference is if the churches are breaking the rules, they lose their exempt status.

 

[DaveXA]

Time to rip the scab off. The primary function, imo, of churches is not charity. There might be some exceptions but very few, imo.

I also would eliminate the charitable deduction for income tax purposes while simultaneously simplifying the tax code. There is profit in chaos and complexity thus the tax code has become insane.

Tbh, ministers already make a pittance. Losing the charitable deduction would hurt them more than anything else. It wouldn't bother the top 1% of pastors who make millions. This was my personal experience. The vast majority of ministers have little to no savings or retirement. The lack of money was one of the primary reasons I left the ministry.

If you want to hit them where it hurts, go after these megachurches who are breaking all kinds of reporting rules as well as endorsing political candidates. That's where the real money is.

 

[bird]

Tbh, ministers already make a pittance. Losing the charitable deduction would hurt them more than anything else. It wouldn't bother the top 1% of pastors who make millions. This was my personal experience. The vast majority of ministers have little to no savings or retirement. The lack of money was one of the primary reasons I left the ministry.

If you want to hit them where it hurts, go after these megachurches who are breaking all kinds of reporting rules as well as endorsing political candidates. That's where the real money is.

I won’t argue that. It is mega churches but also large organizations that have centralized hierarchies such as the Roman Church. Individual parishes can and do have revenue issues but not so for the mother ship.

Excepting someone such as yourself, Dave, too often when I hear someone, usually male, describe themselves as a “Man of God” I feel an itch to make sure my wallet is secure.

 

[DaveXA]

I won’t argue that. It is mega churches but also large organizations that have centralized hierarchies such as the Roman Church. Individual parishes can and do have revenue issues but not so for the mother ship.

Indeed.

Excepting someone such as yourself, Dave, too often when I hear someone, usually male, describe themselves as a “Man of God” I feel an itch to make sure my wallet is secure.

Lol, I feel that. Pretty much why I only support individual ministers or small, local churches rather than a centralized organization. At least with the individuals I support, I know them personally and are people I trust.