Well, of course that’s right. We have enough money being thrown into political campaigns now; imagine what it would be if political campaign contributions were tax deductible!Actually, I answered it quite clearly: your question is a logical fallacy. The government isn’t taking away anyone’s rights; it’s saying that it won’t grant income-tax exemptions to lobbyists or political parties. So, if you want an income-tax exemption for your non-profit charity, it can’t engage in lobbying or advocating for (or against) political candidates.
But your question is even more fundamentally flawed than that. By definition, the right of free speech includes the option not to speak. The right of religious freedom includes both the right to exercise a religion of your choice and the right not to practice a religion.
You are free to exercise your religion. You are free not to exercise your religion. You are free to change religions. The government cannot mandate any of those choices. Similarly, you are free to proselytize; you are free not to proselytize; and you are free to change your mind about proselytizing.
If you have the right not to speak, then you have the right to accept a financial benefit in exchange for not speaking. That’s what the churches have done. If you want an exemption from taxes, you have to follow the rules of the exemptions. So, if you set up a church and want it to have a tax exemption, it can’t lobby or advocate for particular candidates.
Arguing otherwise is the classic stereotypical welfare-state claim: I want the government to give me money (in this case, the tax exemption), but I refuse to do anything to get it (like follow the rules of tax exemptions). It’s self-contradictory, it’s selfish, and it’s the main thing that’s wrong with this country today: the “bread and circuses” problem of ancient Rome.
If you want the benefit, earn it by following the rules. If you don’t want the burden associated with the benefit, don’t take the benefit.
Claiming that churches have the right to claim an income-tax deduction without having to follow the rules of the tax exemption program is the same as claiming that students have the right to get student loans from the government but shouldn’t have to pay them back.
We still have our constitutional rights as set forth in the Constitution. But, as long as the Church takes the income-tax deduction, it can’t lobby or advocate for or against particular candidates. If the bishops want to start endorsing political candidates and lobbying as an institution, then they need to give up the tax deduction. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; but give to God what is God’s.”
No.The government isn’t taking away anyone’s rights; it’s saying that it won’t grant income-tax exemptions to lobbyists or political parties.
No. The welfare state claim is to give nonproductive the fruits of the productive. And the last time I’ve checked, the Catholic Church was the largest charity in the world, and it has done more to alleviate human suffering than all the government programs COMBINED.Arguing otherwise is the classic stereotypical welfare-state claim:
No need to caution me as you cannot possibly know what’s in my heart, so please do not try. One of my favorite teachings is by Arbship Fulton Sheen in which he speaks of false compassion and true charity. He is quoted as saying that charity is not a sloppy sentiment and we are to be unmerciful to the error in the minds of those who have gone astray.I tend to place “Sometimes charity means calling a spade a spade” comments in the same category as the social comment “What’s wrong? I’m just being honest!” (usually made while someone flees the room in tears).
More and more, I am associating spade-calling with the darker side of apologetics. Not pointing to anyone on this thread, generally speaking the “harsh truth given in charity” meme seems to come from pride-filled people who find pleasure in name-calling. True, that’s not always true; but a lot of would-be apologists seem to enjoy hurting other people’s feelings. So I would caution you against being too eager to call spades spades (and, more importantly, I would caution you against encouraging others to do so), because in the end what we get is a whole lot of anger and hurt feelings, and not much persuasion or conversion of hearts.
Not that I’m never guilty of meanness. But driving away the people who need teaching in the Faith does them and us a disservice. The hierarchy has the right and duty to chastise; the laity should be much slower to speak harshly.
And who can see what’s in another person’s heart; well enough to claim false compassion and charity?No need to caution me as you cannot possibly know what’s in my heart, so please do not try. One of my favorite teachings is by Arbship Fulton Sheen in which he speaks of false compassion and true charity. He is quoted as saying that charity is not a sloppy sentiment and we are to be unmerciful to the error in the minds of those who have gone astray.
Again, you seem to assume that voluntarily choosing not to speak means you’ve lost the right of free speech. The Catholic Church knew the rules when it applied for the tax exemption; thus, it chose to limit its ability to speak.No.
If someone has the tax exemption, they do not have free speech rights. The government has purchased the free speech rights and taken them away from them.
Not only am I not proving your point; neither are you. Your basic demand that the Constitution have a provision saying the magic language you came up with is just downright silly. Congress has the power to to lay and collect taxes, including income taxes; to make laws necessary and proper for carrying out its purposes; and to establish regulations for the carrying out of its business. Those powers inherently include the ability to say “We’ll give tax exemptions to charities as long as they don’t lobby or support political candidates, because we’re spending that money for charity, not for lobbying.”Since you did not bother to show that this is one of the government’s powers in the constitution, you have made my point very well. The government cannot purchase our free speech rights and take them away from us.
Hmm. Not according to well-established federal law going back centuries. This is basic civics we’re talking about here; you haven’t suddenly discovered a loophole in the laws that every legal scholar in the country has missed for decades. You’re simply wrong.Thus, the Catholic Church (and other churches) may speak whatever she wants, while having her tax exemption.
Ah yes, the old I-do-good-so-I-get-to-break-the-law-with-impunity-because-of-my-goodness-in-other-areas argument.Arguing otherwise is the classic stereotypical welfare-state claim:
Fallacy, pure and simple.
It has also ruled that the ban on political activity for organizations claiming the tax exemption is constitutional. So your appeal-to-authority argument also fails.The state has a great interest in having these benefits to society continue, so that’s why the tax exemptions were done.
The state cannot punish someone by yanking their tax exempt status for publishing an opinion they don’t like. That is content discrimination, and the supreme court has ruled that unconstitutional.
Besides, your analysis is wrong here, too: the government has established a content-neutral ban on the activities of lobbying (no one can lobby, no matter what subject they’re lobbying on) and supporting/opposing political candidates (no one can support or oppose particular political candidates, no matter which party they’re supporting or opposing). The loss of the tax exemption is not for publishing an opinion the government doesn’t like; it’s for engaging in lobbying and certain political activities of any side. That’s not viewpoint discrimination.
I don’t think the First Amendment is toilet paper. Neither does any competent lawyer. But we know that there are lots of exceptions to the First Amendment, from treason to espionage to defamation to trade-secret law to the famous “clear and present danger” test. And one of those exceptions is, if you take the tax exemption for charities, you can’t lobby or support political candidates (but you can give up the exemption if you want to lobby).So go on, keep thinking the first amendment is just toilet paper.
If your argument (the government can’t tell churches what they can’t say if they want a tax exemption because that’s “purchasing” their right of free speech as an entity) were even close to correct, then the government wouldn’t be able to tell its own employees what they’re allowed to say on the job, since that would be “purchasing” their right of free speech as individuals.
The government can and does bargain with its citizens all the time. An argument that the citizenry gets to accept the benefits of such a bargain but ignore the obligations of such a bargain would utterly destroy the economy, because the government would never be able to enforce any contract it made with anyone.
As opposed to me? Thanks, but I’m a Christian, too. And Christians are obligated to follow the law of the land, which says that the Supreme Court is ultimate arbiter of federal law (including federal constitutional law), and the Supreme Court has said that the ban on lobbying and certain political activities in exchange for receiving a tax exemption is constitutional.We Christians won’t sit in the back of the bus.
So feel free to go out and establish your own charity that lobbies and supports political candidates. Just don’t be surprised when your application for tax-exempt status is denied.
If one looks over the years at some of the statements issued by the USCCB (for instance) one cannot help but see support of the progressive agenda of that organization as a whole. Statements that support gun control, that favor a statist approach to social problems and more government spending, the issue of illegal immigration and that they have connected to Alynskian community organizations in their social justice outreach and then, of course there is the support of healthcare reform with little said about subsidiarity or (name removed by moderator)ut from a more conservative side.There have always been pastors who preach politics and churches that take political stands. It is not necessary to name a candidate to support him or her. The Catholic publications we get are full of political support for one party or another. Some say that the Church should not engage in politics; others that the Church has every right to urge voters to support Church policy. There seem to be good arguments both ways. I wonder, though, if it is dangerous to the primary mission of the Church to jump into the political cesspool. If the Church comes to be regarded as just another special interest group, where will that lead? An example: In China the government has appointed a Catholic bishop. If the Church takes part in political action and is viewed as a political entity doesn’t that give the government support for an argument that it can validly exercise some control? Could excessive Church involvement result in a wave of anti-clericalism? Here at home, shouldn’t Democrats and Republicans be able to worship together without political overtones? Should one parish be for liberals, another for conservatives? This all seems to me to involve much deeper factors than superficially present themselves.
No, what the government is doing is saying “OK, you have free speech rights. I’ll buy them away from you (with this tax exemption) so you cannot have free speech.”Actually, I answered it quite clearly: your question is a logical fallacy. The government isn’t taking away anyone’s rights; it’s saying that it won’t grant income-tax exemptions to lobbyists or political parties.
It’s been that way for many years now. What is the driving force behind the motivation to change it now?No, what the government is doing is saying “OK, you have free speech rights. I’ll buy them away from you (with this tax exemption) so you cannot have free speech.”
So where does it say in the Constitution that the government may do this?
As has been pointed out to you; the Church didn’t lose its free speech rights. Any member of the clergy can say whatever they want to say but there is no Constitutional right for a church not to pay taxes. Furthermore; the Church has no position on who the President of the United States should be anyway.No, what the government is doing is saying “OK, you have free speech rights. I’ll buy them away from you (with this tax exemption) so you cannot have free speech.” So where does it say in the Constitution that the government may do this?
You’re implying that it is a punishment. If you choose not to buy a house is the government punishing you by not allowing you to use the mortgage deduction on your taxes? If you bring an expired coupon into a store and aren’t permitted to use it is the store punishing you by not giving you a discount? The clergy does have the same free speech rights as everybody else but if they don’t play by the rules then the Church hast to pay taxes like everybody else too.As I said earlier, I do not have a problem with this. I think that it is wrong to violate a just law but is this law a just law? I am really not sure. I do feel that churches and parishes should have all the same free speech rights as anyone else and that includes the right to political speech and speaking against or for a certain candidate without repercussions from the IRS or any other government agency.
The Church suffers blame in history now for ties with governments. It was as much the Church’s decision to have a separation of Church and state as it was a governments.As I said earlier, I do not have a problem with this. I think that it is wrong to violate a just law but is this law a just law? I am really not sure. I do feel that churches and parishes should have all the same free speech rights as anyone else and that includes the right to political speech and speaking against or for a certain candidate without repercussions from the IRS or any other government agency.
I see, so the government has been doing unconstitutional things for many years, so we should never change that.It’s been that way for many years now. What is the driving force behind the motivation to change it now?
If someone has free speech rights, the government is not allowed to punish them for exercising their free speech rights (by fining them) or charging them a tax to do so.As has been pointed out to you; the Church didn’t lose its free speech rights. Any member of the clergy can say whatever they want to say but there is no Constitutional right for a church not to pay taxes. Furthermore; the Church has no position on who the President of the United States should be anyway.
Churches can lobby for or against particular issues, propositions, and ammendments. They do it all the time. That is not what is at issue with the whole tax-exempt thing.At the parish I’ve been attending for the last couple of weeks, there are “vote yes on amendment 6” and “vote yes on amendment 8” signs right in the front. There were also papers about the amendments inside.
We should not find a political advantage for some and use changing it only for that political advantage. Either political party, we’ll still have a government controlling us.I see, so the government has been doing unconstitutional things for many years, so we should never change that.
This is how totalitarianism creeps forward.
That’s because we have a one party system. Sure they say it is a two party system, but when both act the same, it is really a one party system.Either political party, we’ll still have a government controlling us.