5 ms·

What if the authorities don't mind the churches doing so? It seems like, especially leading up to elections, you see videos of this almost every day. How can so

by Timon3 3y ago

What if the authorities don't mind the churches doing so? It seems like, especially leading up to elections, you see videos of this almost every day. How can someone actually make sure that some consequences happen?

kashunstva 3y ago
> How can someone actually make sure that some consequences happen? You can’t, because the IRS steadfastly refuses to pursue these violations. I’m an active lifetime member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; and through our organization these near-constant occurrences of political endorsement by churches have been reported numerous times. To no avail. To make matters worse, clergy in the U.S. often receive a large portion of their income as a housing allowance which is not taxable, as I understand it. But the majority of course still take their mortgage interest deduction. It’s a racket.
- xupybd 3y ago
  I know several church ministers. They work hard and get paid very little. Maybe the tax payer should not be subsidizing them but to say it's a racket is not fair. Some celebrity church leaders live lives of luxury but the average needs the tax breaks just to survive.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    > the average needs the tax breaks just to survive. The question becomes: Are the umbrella organizations paying the ministers just the bare minimum to keep them on? So if the tax breaks are stopped, will the church organization cover the new difference, or lose the ministers? It might still be a racket where the ministers are also getting screwed. The benefit of the tax breaks may not go to the minister who receives the tax break, but instead benefit the archdiocese/convention/council/conference/synod/assembly/convocation/etc who pays
    - bombcar 3y ago
      For those outside the USA they may be surprised just how many churches in the USA are effectively independent franchises with no real central authority. People think of “Catholic Church” as the large multinational agency, but when you hear people talking about churches in the USA it’s often small Protestant churches. (Some Protestant churches do have national structures, true, but you’re not often hearing about Lutherans doing things)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
afiori 3y ago
I don't think that there is any chance[0] that the autorities will go after the churches for things like these. But even if everyone tollerates the authorities turning a blind eye to the issue many would not tollerate the autorities making it an official policy or slipping up and saying stuff like "a church could run for office for all I care". The state is protecting churches in ways it should not; you likely cannot defeat this protection, but you can put pressure on the state so that it will be harder/riskier to keep doing it.[1] [0] at a trend level, or at least for the well connected churches with armies of lawyers. [1] I must warn that this is close to declaring a war (on a very small scale) and as such you could come out in a worse position than when you started.
- Timon3 3y ago
  It seems like some kind of transparent federal oversight is desperately needed. As you say any kind of change will be interpreted incredibly negatively, so any local approach will be suppressed.

by Timon3 3y ago

kashunstva 3y ago

> How can someone actually make sure that some consequences happen? You can’t, because the IRS steadfastly refuses to pursue these violations. I’m an active lifetime member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; and through our organization these near-constant occurrences of political endorsement by churches have been reported numerous times. To no avail. To make matters worse, clergy in the U.S. often receive a large portion of their income as a housing allowance which is not taxable, as I understand it. But the majority of course still take their mortgage interest deduction. It’s a racket.

xupybd 3y ago
I know several church ministers. They work hard and get paid very little. Maybe the tax payer should not be subsidizing them but to say it's a racket is not fair. Some celebrity church leaders live lives of luxury but the average needs the tax breaks just to survive.
- reaperman 3y ago
  > the average needs the tax breaks just to survive. The question becomes: Are the umbrella organizations paying the ministers just the bare minimum to keep them on? So if the tax breaks are stopped, will the church organization cover the new difference, or lose the ministers? It might still be a racket where the ministers are also getting screwed. The benefit of the tax breaks may not go to the minister who receives the tax break, but instead benefit the archdiocese/convention/council/conference/synod/assembly/convocation/etc who pays
  - bombcar 3y ago
    For those outside the USA they may be surprised just how many churches in the USA are effectively independent franchises with no real central authority. People think of “Catholic Church” as the large multinational agency, but when you hear people talking about churches in the USA it’s often small Protestant churches. (Some Protestant churches do have national structures, true, but you’re not often hearing about Lutherans doing things)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

afiori 3y ago

I don't think that there is any chance[0] that the autorities will go after the churches for things like these. But even if everyone tollerates the authorities turning a blind eye to the issue many would not tollerate the autorities making it an official policy or slipping up and saying stuff like "a church could run for office for all I care". The state is protecting churches in ways it should not; you likely cannot defeat this protection, but you can put pressure on the state so that it will be harder/riskier to keep doing it.[1] [0] at a trend level, or at least for the well connected churches with armies of lawyers. [1] I must warn that this is close to declaring a war (on a very small scale) and as such you could come out in a worse position than when you started.

Timon3 3y ago
It seems like some kind of transparent federal oversight is desperately needed. As you say any kind of change will be interpreted incredibly negatively, so any local approach will be suppressed.