Is Islam being political?

[waldo]

Religion isn't considered "political" in the U.S. unless a church/religious organization is directly supporting or opposing a specific candidate, or directly involved in trying to pass or prevent passage of specific legislation. Religions may comment on political issues, they just cannot become directly involved.

oh really? Just what would you call the Mormons involvement in California's Proposition 8 - the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage?

and the reason your IRS didn't/hasn't revoked the Mormon's tax exempt status given its financing/running of that Prop 8 campaign... would be?

[M.Dancer]

oh really? Just what would you call the Mormons involvement in California's Proposition 8 - the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage?

and the reason your IRS didn't/hasn't revoked the Mormon's tax exempt status given its financing/running of that Prop 8 campaign... would be?

Do you have a cite showing LDS official involvement?

[scribblet]

I thought, being politically involved was more than supporting a candidate, ( in Canada) I think it could also lose it's status for advocating on such issues as gay marriage and abortion. The Church has to refrain from partisan political activity. That would include advocating terrorism and jihad I would think.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0590-e.htm

Edited September 7, 2010 by scriblett

[Guest American Woman]

oh really? Just what would you call the Mormons involvement in California's Proposition 8 - the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage?

Illegal. That's why they were fined.

[waldo]

Do you have a cite showing LDS official involvement?

there's a brazillion of them out there... LDS is said to have donated 20+ Million dollars and accounted for 'over half' of the campaign staffers/time involvements:

- official LDS letter - California and Same-Sex Marriage:

- NYT article - Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage:

- Youtube video promoting movie - 8: The Mormon Proposition

- Wikileaks - LDS Church Proposition 8 anti-gay campaign notes - lds-proposition8-notes-2008.pdf - here:

[waldo]

Illegal. That's why they were fined.

that illegality had to do with failure to report late in the campaign non-monetary related support... a wrist slap of some $5000 dollars by a California state level commission... it had nothing whatsoever to do with your IRS and tax exempt status for the Mormon church. So, again:

and the reason your IRS didn't/hasn't revoked the Mormon's tax exempt status given its financing/running of that Prop 8 campaign... would be?

[Guest American Woman]

that illegality had to do with failure to report late in the campaign non-monetary related support... a wrist slap of some $5000 dollars by a California state level commission... it had nothing whatsoever to do with your IRS and tax exempt status for the Mormon church.

Then it makes no sense to me. I'm totally against churches having tax exemption anyway, and this just reaffirms my beliefs.

From what I've read, no church has ever lost it's tax exemption status. Guess there's nothing to worry about there.

[ToadBrother]

oh really? Just what would you call the Mormons involvement in California's Proposition 8 - the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage?

and the reason your IRS didn't/hasn't revoked the Mormon's tax exempt status given its financing/running of that Prop 8 campaign... would be?

My understanding is that the exemption applies to support for parties or candidates, not just to policy or proposed laws. As I recall the IRS did send some strongly-worded warnings out to some churches during the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections for explicit support for candidates.

Edited September 7, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

Then it makes no sense to me. I'm totally against churches having tax exemption anyway, and this just reaffirms my beliefs.

From what I've read, no church has ever lost it's tax exemption status. Guess there's nothing to worry about there.

To be honest I think its because most churches follow the rules most of the time.

Edited September 7, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

My understanding is that the exemption applies to support for parties or candidates, not just to policy or proposed laws. As I recall the IRS did send some strongly-worded warnings out to some churches during the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections for explicit support for candidates.

The warnings have never amounted to a church losing it's tax exempt status:

The Internal Revenue Code ... expressly prohibits churches and other nonprofit organizations from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates. From 1954 to the present, only one church has ever lost its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status for opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President in 1992.

In 1934, the Internal Revenue Code was amended to restrict the amount of lobbying a 501©(3) organization may conduct. A 501©(4) organization has no restriction on the amount of lobbying it may pursue, but a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501©(3) organization may not devote more than a substantial part of its overall activities toward lobbying. Churches are governed by this provision whether or not they have an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling.

From 1934 to the present, not one church has ever lost either its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling or its tax-exempt status for engaging in too much lobbying. link

[scribblet]

Then it makes no sense to me. I'm totally against churches having tax exemption anyway, and this just reaffirms my beliefs.

From what I've read, no church has ever lost it's tax exemption status. Guess there's nothing to worry about there.

Actually, I do believe a church in Alberta lost theirs.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually, I do believe a church in Alberta lost theirs.

If that's true, good for Canada. Tax exempt money should not be used for political agendas by churches/religions.

[waldo]

My understanding is that the exemption applies to support for parties or candidates, not just to policy or proposed laws. As I recall the IRS did send some strongly-worded warnings out to some churches during the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections for explicit support for candidates.

yes, it applies to both - IRS: tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations

I would have preferred that AW could have come up with the answer to allow her to further re-qualify her statement:

Religion isn't considered "political" in the U.S. unless a church/religious organization is directly supporting or opposing a specific candidate, or directly involved in trying to pass or prevent passage of specific legislation. Religions may comment on political issues, they just cannot become directly involved.

in any case, the reason the Mormon church didn't/won't lose it's tax exempt status over its overwhelming influence in determining the outcome of California's Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage... the reason why you won't see any of the large(st) established "churches" lose their tax exempt status over their involvements in influencing legislation... is that the larger you get, the less chance there will be of losing that tax exempt status. That's right - bigger... is better, as the loss of tax exempt status hinges on the IRS' review and interpretation of the degree of what constitutes "substantial" participation/involvement. (The IRS uses the term "church" in a generic sense... to designate a place of worship including, for example, mosques and synagogues.)

Substantial Lobbying Activity

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

Measuring Lobbying Activity

Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

the cited case law I've read seems to hold that the IRS' qualification of "substantial" reflects upon an investment of when, "less than 5 percent of an organization's activities are devoted to lobbying, it is presumptively not a "substantial" part of the organizations overall activity." Yes, that's right... even though the Mormon church is said to have donated more than $20 Million dollars and anywhere from 50%-to-75% of the overall staffing/campaign hours towards California's Proposition 8, that the Mormon Church has been labeled/accepted as the determining factor in the outcome of Prop 8... that "substantial" involvement in determining California legislation was deemed "mice nuts" in relation to the overall activity the Mormon church is engaged in. So, again, 'bigger... is better'!

[Guest American Woman]

I would have preferred that AW could have come up with the answer to allow her to further re-qualify her statement:

Ummm. I did. Obviously the laws aren't enforced. Sorry I didn't state that simply enough for you to understand.....

[waldo]

Ummm. I did. Obviously the laws aren't enforced. Sorry I didn't state that simply enough for you to understand.....

no - you initially pedaled the minuscule state level fine and emphasized the related illegality as having something to do with the IRS/tax exemption - which it doesn't. From there you go on to reaffirm your position that, as you state, "I'm totally against churches having tax exemption anyway". No where do you address your specific, most emphatic assertion; specifically, again:

Religion isn't considered "political" in the U.S. unless a church/religious organization is directly supporting or opposing a specific candidate, or directly involved in trying to pass or prevent passage of specific legislation. Religions may comment on political issues, they just cannot become directly involved.

clearly, the Mormon Prop 8 example (just one of many available), refutes your most emphatic statement. While you re-qualify that statement, you could also identify which laws you state aren't being enforced. My read on the IRS position is that it believes it's adhering to "the laws" in terms of the "substantial" qualifier on the degree of overall lobbying... case law exists to support the IRS in that regard. Of course, you could simply accept that your statement was incorrect and that contrary to your claim, 'religion is most certainly political in the U.S.' (save for IRS interpretations, that is - right? ).

[Shady]

Perhaps all tax exempt organizations should be held to the same standard. Media Matters, the far-left website in America is designated as tax exempt organization. Even though they're deeply involved in politics.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps all tax exempt organizations should be held to the same standard. Media Matters, the far-left website in America is designated as tax exempt organization. Even though they're deeply involved in politics.

I couldn't agree more. That goes for far right websites/organizations, too. Tax exempt status should be reserved for organizations that are charities, pure and simple. No politics involved. At all.

[MysTerri]

A religion in order to be recognized as such in America needs to be

apolitical or it's religious/charitable status can be revoked.

Could this happen to Islam in the US?

Any church, mosque, synagogue, (ie. - the Church in Florida whose minister wants to burn Korans), should have its religious/charitable status revoked, pronto, but not the whole religion.

[Pliny]

Perhaps all tax exempt organizations should be held to the same standard. Media Matters, the far-left website in America is designated as tax exempt organization. Even though they're deeply involved in politics.

That's interesting! Is it true? What purpose would it have that enabled it to acquire tax-exempt status?

[Pliny]

I couldn't agree more. That goes for far right websites/organizations, too. Tax exempt status should be reserved for organizations that are charities, pure and simple. No politics involved. At all.

What if there were a politician that wanted to eliminate charitable tax exempt status for charities?

It would be easy to say they were being political if they opposed him?

The IRS has, as it has in many areas, violated the Constitution by making laws regarding establishments of religion. The only law that should be made regarding religion is to define it and ensure applications for religious status are based upon the parameters described within the definition and ensuring the State and Church remain separate - that means that the church may not make laws, be exempt from the laws of the land, or mete justice. The State must remain the single authority to use or delegate the use of force. Could it agree to Sharia law? Yes, it could on the basis that it is within it's authority to "delegate" the use of force but then again it would require a law regarding an establishment of religion.

What the whole situation boils down to is the use of force. No one is going to force those wishing to build a mosque at ground zero to not build it. If they do they will be held accountable under the law.

Likewise, no one should be able to use force against someone burning a book. If they do they should be held accountable. There cannot be a double standard. The use of force or the delegation of the use of force must remain with the State in it's ability to craft legislation.

[GostHacked]

I couldn't agree more. That goes for far right websites/organizations, too. Tax exempt status should be reserved for organizations that are charities, pure and simple. No politics involved. At all.

I'm on board with this as well.

[dre]

I'm on board with this as well.

Even charities shouldnt be entirely tax exempt. They should just be able to write off the money that actually gets spent on delivering charity.

If they purchase real estate though for example that appreciates over time, they should pay taxes on it. Same goes for churches. Allow them to write off their legitimate charitable expenses, and tax them on other activities that accrue wealth, such as purchasing realestate.

[GostHacked]

Even charities shouldnt be entirely tax exempt. They should just be able to write off the money that actually gets spent on delivering charity.

If they purchase real estate though for example that appreciates over time, they should pay taxes on it. Same goes for churches. Allow them to write off their legitimate charitable expenses, and tax them on other activities that accrue wealth, such as purchasing realestate.

In those cases the land is bought to expand the charity. The charity does not make money all of it goes to the effort of expanding the charity and providing it to the community. If the organization gets bigger, then they need to buy land for its operations.

We should not tax charities that actually work and help out the community. It seems counter productive to tax a charity that is all about giving back and helping the community. But if it is found out they are not helping ... then by all means... tax them.

[ToadBrother]

Any church, mosque, synagogue, (ie. - the Church in Florida whose minister wants to burn Korans), should have its religious/charitable status revoked, pronto, but not the whole religion.

And under what rule would you revoke the Qu'ran burning church's status?

[Pliny]

And under what rule would you revoke the Qu'ran burning church's status?

That would only be possible if they were burning books that didn't belong to them.