News-Record.com

Without commenting specifically on this church and this incident, I'm ready for a church to stand up and say, "We don't need your tax-exempt status, thank you. We are called to preach the Word of God from our pulpit, without the interference or permission of civil authorities."

Pastors should be preaching according to the Word of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Giving up tax-exempt status would mean that churches would have to file a tax return, but most churches would have little or no taxable income, so this wouldn't present a tremendous burden.

The other piece is that contributors would not receive a tax deduction for their tithes and offerings to the church. But guess what? Folks in the Bible didn't get a tax deduction, either. We're told to be "cheerful givers," but we're not promised a kickback.

I'm ready for a church to stand up and say, "We don't need your tax-exempt status, thank you. We are called to preach the Word of God from our pulpit, without the interference or permission of civil authorities."

Good luck with that. Churches in this country have been supported by the government with this tax exemption from the very beginning. They aren't about to be willing to give that up. This story is just the down side of the support they get. The upside is called "land banking."

Having done a fair bit of reporting on political involvement of tax-exempt organizations, from the standpoint of both the politics beat and the religion beat, I'd have to say the case against this church is, to be polite, AWFULLY sketchy.

As for tax exemptions for churches, that's a really interesting question. The bad actors get all the press, but the fact is that that exemption makes possible an awful lot of good work in communities small and large. Without it, I suspect most of that work either would have to be paid for by government or wouldn't be paid for at all. I'd really love to see a careful cost-benefit analysis of the options. And a pony.

What sort of cost-benefit analysis could be done? I think it's an interesting question as well, but you'd think that this sort of thing would have happened long before starting the exemption.

But a lot of people don't know exactly what the exemption entails. Not only is it a matter of zero taxable income, but there are tax breaks for clergy, exemptions from property taxes -- which makes local governments far less able to raise tax reveues, particularly here in the South where you not only have a church on about every corner, but in the middle of an awful lot of blocks.

But what are the results of this tax situation? Sure, churches do a lot of social good (on average), but are they returning good value for their payment? How many churches only help their own, rather than the community in general? How many use their "help" as a coercive means of membership recruitment? How many take the tax break and abuse it by buying parcels of land, removing them from the tax rolls and waiting for the property to appreciate in value, to reap large, tax-free profits later?

The first reaction I had looking at this staory is that we're seeing a test case where the government is using this tax exempt status as a political weapon. Last November, we saw in the news a lot of cases where political advice came from pulpits, even that case up in the NC mountains where the pastor tried to expel all Democrats... but such cases were ignored by the IRS so far as I've heard. But get a guest speaker in who says something critical of the war, and you get a microscope shoved where the sun never shines?

What gets me is how blatant this appears. These folks say they feel singled out. I wonder if this is the case, because the story didn't pursue the question of whether there are other similar investigations going on. Curious, eh?

Interesting that this church is being singled out because of a sermon against the Iraqi war. Guess the Quakers and Mennonites are in big trouble!

But what about all those churches which supported the extreme right wing candidates in the last election? Or, are we becoming such a facist nation that anyone who goes against the "government" is targeted for harassment (i.e. Plamegate)? Anyone know what happened to the churches in Germany that went against National Socialism. Does this sound familiar?

By the way...tax the churches...all of them!

For those who say atheists have a religion: where's my tax-exemption? I agree the "good" done by churches is welcome, but it often comes with strings attached (recruitment, sermonizing, guilt trips, irrational 'theories')

Cara Michele: Good point. Will we live long enough to see that day?

A few years ago, the Sunday before an election, a bunch of us reporters fanned out over the city, listening in on what clergy had to say -- especially if it was a ringing endorsement for anyone.

I was in the late Michael King's church, and he wasn't blatant, but gave the biggest 'wink wink' I had ever seen locally for a Democrat. I compare that to the just as big 'wink wink' given Bush by the Southern Baptist Convention. So it goes on everywhere.

I just think that, even though it doesn't appear to be a home run for the government, that this case would be a dangerous precedent when we've been thisclose to making religion the dividing line for eveything in this country. Or, maybe I need a cup of coffee.

I consider it "bullying" tactics by the IRS. Far worse scenes have been played out in favor of the current administration and its policies. So, where is the danger?

I will not even begin to go into the tax-exempt status granted religious organizations. That is just too big a can of worms for me to want to get into today!

Shalom

Eric and others, please remember that the exemption in question covers ALL charitable nonprofits, not just churches. The only real distinction drawn between churches and other charities in IRS regs is that churches are not required to file tax returns. If you revoke the exemption for churches only, what's your argument for doing so?

Eric: the N.C. case was resolved when the pastor left the church.

Lex, are you saying that Boy Scouts (for instance) is exempt from paying property tax on the land the councils own? I wasn't aware of that. And I'd argue that removing the property tax exemption for all not-for-profits would be a better solution if that was the case.

Regarding the NC case mentioned earlier, one would have to wonder why the pastor exiting (stage RIGHT!) would close the case, while the church in CA is still in jeopardy over a guest speaker's sermon.

And the question of whether other churches have been treated this way is still open. I've read several versions of this story, and the most I've seen is a reference to a church losing its tax status for preaching against Bill Clinton in 1992.

Eric, I'd say the church is only in jeopardy for the moment. The story only became public a few days ago.

As for whether other churches have been treated this way, I can't give a comprehensive answer. I do know that the national Christian Coalition was denied a permanent tax exemption in 1999, after waiting almost 10 years for a decision, because of its involvement in partisan politics, including but not limited to North Carolina's 1990 U.S. Senate race. (It then reorganized under the banner and tax exemption of its Texas chapter, a separate corporation.)