Religion, SF, and Other Speculative Fictions.


Mind on Fire random header image
← →

the Intersection of Politics & Religion

Posted by xJane on August 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm · 7 Comments

My father was recently interviewed again (mp3 link, will start playing as soon as it loads; somewhat confusing page it is hosted on here), promoting his position regarding a proposed ballot initiative in the State of Washington which concerns what he would call “Assisted Suicide” or “Right to Life” but which I would call “Death with Dignity”. I’ve previously discussed my feelings about my father politicizing his illness (and the fact that it drags into the media my personal pain as well as that of my family) but honestly, in a similar position, I would do the same. We’re cut from the same cloth and neither of us is the quiet type; neither do we suffer from a lack of strong opinions. But something he says in this new interview struck me as post-worthy:

There is a suit against Right to Life groups in Washington who would oppose this [ballot proposition], claiming that they are really engaging in political activity, instead of in Pro-Life activity.

Which got me thinking. Of course “pro-life activity” is political in nature, as it is “of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country”. But it is, of course, also religious activity, since it seeks to uphold religious ideals/laws. Now, part of me wants to say that “pro-life activity” is a-religious, since membership in a particular religion is in no way necessary to be part of their cadre. But it’s a fine line between preaching from the pulpit to support life in accordance with a religious text and preaching from the pulpit that a religious text dictates that you vote for or against a proposition or politician.

Non-religious may have an easier time of it, since there is no fear that they might lose their tax-exempt status by preaching, opening with prayer, or refusing association with non-religious (or non-correct-religious). So I see where he’s coming from (which is a big step, for me), but still disagree (which is also a big step, in another way). The church he attends has every right to conduct a sermon based upon certain commandments or passages that may correspond to a ballot proposition, but ought not blatantly state that the religion demands that they vote a certain way. (Similarly, political parties ought not demand that their members vote a certain way: voting should be up to the person.) The political groups he associates with have every right to donate time, resources, and money to defeating ballot measures and candidates, but no right to promote religion. The person caught in the middle, perhaps driving between one meeting and the other, holds values that do not change when he steps (or, now, wheels) over the threshold. So, to that person, it may seem an injustice that the law keeps the one from bleeding over into the other. But standing on the outside, I’m grateful for the laws that state that religion should still be kept from politics (although I also think that religions should pay taxes like everyone else…).

Tags: Activism · Atheism · Belief · Charities · Christianity · Church and State · Current Events · Death · Dialog · Ethics · Getting over Religion · Humanism · Humanity · Law · News · Personal · Politics · Reason · Religion · Society

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 John // Aug 2, 2008 at 12:05 am

    xJane, as I far as I know, current federal regulations draw the line at endorsing individual politicians and parties, but ballot measures and propositions are fair game. It’s why the LDS and Catholic churches can get away with supporting Prop 8 across the pulpit.

    I’m glad for the anti-establishment clause and for how it’s generally been interpreted and implemented, but sometimes I think the religion/politics division is way too artificial and unwieldy.

    I hope we can explore this topic further!

  • 2 Brian // Aug 3, 2008 at 8:10 am

    xJane, I agree strongly with pretty much everything you said. I’m also glad you seem to be sorting through your conflicted relationship with your father; you can’t pick your family, we all have to deal with that. And we all have to do what we think is right with all our strength. Anything less than that and we betray our own conscience.

    As for the political activity of churches, that’s a mixed bag. I think that churches should be politically active without threats made against them. (Using their tax exempt status as a cudgel is ridiculous, to me. It’s been said that the power to tax something is the power to destroy it, which is the root reason religious organizations have been tax exempt, because it is deemed wise in our society that the government NOT have the power to regulate and execute religions through economic means.) From the religion’s standpoint, we should try to pursue the social missions of our respective religions without becoming dependent upon a particular political party or candidate. (This can only lead to disappointment, from the Christian perspective. We are made for eternity, and our hearts are restless until they rest in God, as the saying goes.) So I think it’s laudable for religious leaders or organizations to encourage their followers to vote in accordance with their morality, but crosses a line when endorsing a particular politician or party. Propositions seem a kind of murky middle ground, and I would probably come down for encouraging a particular vote on a prop, simply because it is so straightforward and issue based.

  • 3 Anne // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:47 am

    John – not true at all.

    Religious entities, like any tax-exempt organization, is prohibited from any political activity – that includes endorsing candidates or ballot measures, working to elect candidates or pass ballot measures, or any form of lobbying. (And “lobbying” includes any communication with the public).

    The gray area is that there is no consistent test in IRS rules or case law to determine what, exactly, constitutes “education” and what constitutes “political activity.” So churches and others try to get away with one in the guise of the other, playing IRS enforcement roulette and hoping that nobody notices.

    If a complaint is brought to the attention of the IRS, then the church or other nonprofit can lose their tax-exempt status.

  • 4 xJane // Aug 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Brian said,

    the root reason religious organizations have been tax exempt, [is] because it is deemed wise in our society that the government NOT have the power to regulate and execute religions through economic means.

    Inasmuch as Nonprofits (not necessarily only religious ones) have no profits to tax, I can agree. But they do have operating costs, including rent. Do they pay property taxes? How about taxes on behalf of their employees? I’m fuzzy on the subject of “tax-exempt” and generally find it to be ridiculous that religious are so. Are the incomes of clergy untaxable? What about their lifestyles (living accommodations, transport, &c.)?

    Isn’t it alternately possible to form a nonprofit with the express position of affecting politics? [Planned Parenthood, Code Pink, and the ACLU spring to mind.] Do they get the same tax-exempt status as religion? If not, why?

  • 5 Brian // Aug 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Apologies if this doesn’t make sense, I’m trying to calm my infant as I write this.

    I don’t know where the tax exempt status of a religious organization begins and ends, nor would I venture to say where it should. I imagine it’s pretty much restricted to not having to pay corporate taxes, property taxes, and to make income (donations) tax deductible to the donors. If a pastor draws a salary, I imagine it is taxed as personal income. If a nun has a pension, the same. If a priest buys wine for consecration, I imagine you could tax it if alcohol is taxed. No idea if that is the case, or should be.

    As to other nonprofits, like you mentioned, it doesn’t really address my concern. I see the issue of tax exempt status for religions as being fundamentally a First Amendment issue, going hand in glove with non establishment. A government’s decision to declare other ventures non taxable seems to be a separate issue, one of social and fiscal policy, rather than (what I see as) an issue of religious freedom.

  • 6 xJane // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    I guess I just don’t see that much difference between taxing a church and taxing the YMCA (which is also a poor example, since it may well fall under the same loophole because of the “C”). I don’t see how taxation constitutes destruction. As much as I would love not to pay taxes, I still do, and that doesn’t mean I agree with how they’re used or my government. Or even the structure of my government…

    I’d love to know more about the limits of the tax exempt clause and what brought it about (is it recent or part of the constitution, &c.).

    I appreciate you taking part in this discussion even while actively being a father :)

  • 7 Eric // Aug 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    This is murky water that we have wandered into here. One of the most misunderstood concepts in the U.S. Constitution is the separation of Church and State mostly because nowhere in the constitution are the words “separation of church and state” used. They come from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, which while politically poetic is not legal binding. Now that is not to say that there is no separation of church and state written into the constitution you just need to understand it.

    In some other response I will gladly go int that, but for the purpose of this response I will limit myself to an explanation of the Tax Exempt status of non-profit/religious organizations. Let’s start with the exemption requirements:

    “To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

    Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

    The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

    Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.” (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html)

    in short to maintain their status as tax exempt the institution “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”

    So they cannot under any circumstance participate in campaign activity for any candidate. Here is how they explain that further:

    Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

    Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

    On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

    The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition. (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html)

    So regarding candidates everything they do has to be non-partisan. They can host non-partisan town hall events, participate in get out and vote drives, and publish voter education guides. The key to these activities is that they be non-partisan and not advocate one candidate over another.

    The rules on Lobbying however are a little looser which can be surmised by this verbage “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities”. The IRS defines the rules as follows:

    In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

    Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

    An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

    Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. (http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html)

    The idea being that an organization committed to a specific moral code should have the right to uphold it’s morals and those of its practitioners. They are granted Tax Exempt status because they are charitable organizations so the bulk of their operation needs to be focused in the area of charitable work, i.e. religious observance , care for the soul, care for the poor etc… and they must pick and choose carefully the legislative activities that they choose to tackle and take care that they remain focused a devote most of their resources toward charitable endeavors and not political. Lest they become a political action group which can be taxed.

Leave a Comment