Catholic Bishops angered by loss of federal funding!

reply to post by tothetenthpower

By looking at the time stamps, it would appear that our posts crossed in the "mail." Are any of your comments properly addressed by the information I provided in the post just above yours? If not, I'd be happy to expand on them.

reply to post by charles1952


Do you honestly think that the Vatican isn't one of the richest institutions on the face of the planet? Sure, pulling news articles where the Vatican states it has a certain income and expenses is great, but where is the actual ledger for proof? Where's the budget?

And no, removing tax exempt status from churches does not require any other change to non profit organizations.

Unlike non-profits, churches operate for profit. Just look at all the Evangelical mega churches in the US, those people make millions upon millions of dollars a year.

There's a reason that Jesus through out the money lenders...

It's ludicrous that tax payer money is being used to fund church programs, when we clearly should have separation of church and state. If they'd like to do that, then they can make it so that every year when I file my taxes, I can claim whatever amount the government gave them, divided by the people in the area, as a valid claim and get a return on that money.

Considering I gave it to a "charitable" organization, it should be a tax write off for me too.

~Keeper

reply to post by charles1952


pfffth..that doesnt even come close to showing how much wealth they've bled out of people over the centuries that they've been running their little scam..erm..primitive barbaric religion.. And seriously doubt they're providing an honest accounting of how much they fleece governments and people for annually..

if the task being addressed is Humanitarian in nature... the church religious doctrine should not be allowed...

the resources being tapped with the grant monies are the infrastructure and distribution systems the Catholics have in place with their ubiquitious parishes, the nuns & brothers to man the desks etc.....
religious indoctrination does not need to be forced upon the persons seeking help or aid... and denial of service because of Catholic Doctrine should not be allowed...

the church should be providing the service the grant money covers... in an A-religious manner, now if the person being served desires to learn more about the Faith aspect of the service providers, then take them aside and instruct them

the state is no respecter of any religion...seperation of church & state is the order of the day

reply to post by drew1749


When an issue bleeds into areas of conflict with moral doctrine, the churches should opt out of receiving government money. Ideally they would do it on their own initiative, but if not, they should be denied the funds. Should they want to provide those services, they need to do it on their own dime.

Churches should not receive government money, period. To the extent that a church provides a legitimate charitable service, they should be able to deduct the costs of that service from their taxes, which they should also be paying.

Not receiving government funds, the churches should also be able to do what they want absent government interference, such as claiming publically that certain acts are immoral, denying service to non believers, practice the freedom of association and the rest of it.

Dear tothetenthpower,

Do you honestly think that the Vatican isn't one of the richest institutions on the face of the planet? Sure, pulling news articles where the Vatican states it has a certain income and expenses is great, but where is the actual ledger for proof? Where's the budget?

If you want a breakdown of the budget, I can obtain that, but is your standard of proof so high that I need a certified copy of their bank books? What proof are you offering that they're so rich? Multiple news sources?

And no, removing tax exempt status from churches does not require any other change to non profit organizations.

true, but there is a real question whether that move would pass judicial scrutiny.

Unlike non-profits, churches operate for profit. Just look at all the Evangelical mega churches in the US, those people make millions upon millions of dollars a year.

There's a reason that Jesus through out the money lenders...

From the very start we've been talking Catholics, please don't change the subject.

It's ludicrous that tax payer money is being used to fund church programs, when we clearly should have separation of church and state.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think it's ludicrous. They've rejected more and better arguments than we have come up with.

With respect,
Charles1952

too Fin bad ... these religous groups should ge NO federal funding what so ever.... they use these funds to build infrastructure and other programs that are used to promote their religon.

reply to post by St Udio


Why should churches be allowed access to people with in the program to prostolize to them? This is akin to taking strung out drug users and indroctridnate them in religon while they are in a weak minded state ..... isn't that the same way cult members are recruited?

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Its the same way union members are recruited as well - get them in the door and pitch the union. Unions should also be taxed for the same reason. Their dues are income and should be treated as such

Finally they lose their funding, Too often do they politic from the pulpit for which is against the law. Good to see one of the richest conglomerates on the planet get cut off.

They've got plenty of their own money the Pedo bastrds.

reply to post by charles1952

1.) Tax the Churches. Churches are exempt from taxation under section 501c of the tax code. Eliminating exemptions under that section would mean starting to tax: Charities, non-profits, educational organizations, labor unions, social and recreational clubs, teachers' retirement funds, black lung benefit trusts and more. Tax exempt organizations. If you only removed church exemptions there would be court battles centering on hostility to religion.

This is a misinterpretation of law and a mistake of fact. Churches have never been made liable for any tax under the tax code. I defy you to show me one section of that code that has specifically named churches as being liable for any so called "Personal Income Tax". If churches have not been made liable for any tax, then why the hell would they need any exemption?

Any person or entity not liable for a tax needs no exemption from it. This is just one more example where the Vatican (a sovereign nation unto itself) has led its flock astray, by willingly agreeing to self assess themselves as liable to a tax collection agency that has no Constitutional authority over any religion.

By voluntarily applying for a 501-c3 status, the church most imprudently agreed to stifle the speech of its priests, Monsignors, Bishops, and Arch-Bishops regarding politics. The federal government has no lawful authority to dictate whether or not priests can endorse a political candidate, unless of course, the church willingly surrenders their own authority and rights and applies for a 501-c3. This is what the Catholic Church has done for its flock, it has surrendered its divine authority to dubious tax scheme that has no legitimate authority over them. Why did they do this? I suppose for all that juicy "funding" that comes from such an odious tax. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

I haven't had the opportunity to speak with you in a while. I'm grateful for the chance, our chats are always rewarding.

I may have a faulty understanding, but I believe that the present situation allows certain groups to apply for 501(c) status but it is not automatic, the application must be made.

Is your position that the Church should have skipped applying for tax exemption, therefore making them immune to restrictions on their speech? You may have a point there, I'd be willing to discuss it, but other charitable, educational, health care providing organizations get the exemption, so you'll have to make a pretty good case for excluding the Church and allowing everyone else.

As far as mistakes in law and fact go, I will admit that I may have created the impression that 501(c)s are exempt from the start with no need to file an application. Under that interpretation, every organization could say they were 501(c)s without any evidence or information provided. I certainly didn't mean that, and I hope you didn't take it that way. So, what were the errors in fact and law?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


It is always nice to speak with you as well, Brother.

Yes, my position is that the Church, (Catholic,of which I was born and raised, but can be as hard on as any member in this site), should never, ever voluntarily applied for a tax exemption they did not need. The only "benefit" would be to give parishioners a "tax deduction" on their tithes, but any good Catholic knows that if the Church needs to offer "tax deductions" in order to get the laity to tithe, this is a profound indictment on the Church and its followers. Catholics do not need tax deductions in order to tithe.

In terms of the other charitable organizations currently receiving "tax exempt status" the same applies.

In terms of the mistakes of fact, and misinterpretation of law, this is a heady and lengthy discussion that might dramatically derail your thread. That said, let me make a few points of law, and fact, regarding the so called "Personal Income Tax".

First, it is commonly assumed that the tax in question is a direct tax upon income (from whatever source derived), and that the 16th Amendment "relieved" Congress from the rule of apportionment regarding direct taxes upon income.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and to better understand what the 16th Amendment did do, and how it is harmonious with the Constitution, as opposed to the discordance "relieving" would have done, it would be prudent to read two seminal Supreme Court rulings:

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

These two rulings explain that the 16th Amendment did not grant Congress any new power of taxation nor did it impose any new burden upon the People, but was in fact a response to an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.) that had struck down the income tax portion of a revenue bill because it had viewed that tax as a non-apportioned direct tax on income. Congress responded by reminding the courts that they had the complete and plenary power of taxation and that they certainly had authority to pass non-apportioned taxes "on" income and that in the future any such tax must be viewed as an indirect tax, and not a direct tax.

What does this mean? This means that if any church, including the Catholic Church, or any charitable organizations are liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax", then there would be a specific section in the tax code naming the taxed activity of...what? Religious worship? Charitable giving?

You can try to find a section that declares such activities taxed activities if you like, but I warn you the tax code is a five volume set of tedious tautology and circumlocution of language. There is no such taxed activity that would make any church or charity or political organization, or other club liable for this odious tax. It is wholly voluntary, this 501-c status. There are more than just "3's" in the 501-c con game.

Respectfully,

JPZ

Thank you for your kindness, Jean Paul (May I call you that without being too familiar?)

The only "benefit" would be to give parishioners a "tax deduction" on their tithes, but any good Catholic knows that if the Church needs to offer "tax deductions" in order to get the laity to tithe, this is a profound indictment on the Church and its followers. Catholics do not need tax deductions in order to tithe.

I agree completely that believers in any cause should give without an external consideration, but for some people the deduction makes a difference, and I think Congress recognized that by saying "We want to encourage giving to various good causes, and here is one way we can do it." I think you'd also say that being exempt from property tax is also a large benefit to churches.

Further benefits would include elimination of gift or estate taxes on income received by the church, no tax on capital gains if they sell their property, and tax free interest and dividends if they invest.

Thanks for mentioning those seminal tax cases. It's been a long time since I've Shepardized a case. I don't even know if they do that anymore. But I like your emphasis on the act of giving rather than on the acquisition of benefits by the Church.

There is no such taxed activity that would make any church or charity or political organization, or other club liable for this odious tax.

I may be mistaken, but I think the examples pointed out above show activities that would be taxed either to the detriment of the church or its contributors.

You've got a good mind there, Jean Paul. If you'd like my opinion, I think you should hang around ATS if just to raise the tone of the place.

Oh, on the subject of opinions, do you think any of the points raised in the other posts need to be addressed, or are they best left to "return to the dust from whence they came?" Some are just silly, and I don't know if anybody is out there any more.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Expat888


Ok if you want to audit the Catholic Church, then they all should be done Southern Baptist Conviction, Methodist. Islamic Mosques, their Charitable organizations. Kill their tax exempt status. No 501 (c)(3) companies organizations. H3LL no one needs to have tax exempt. What the Catholic church did in the past, let's look at everything. The "church" that burned the "witches" in the 1600's. Lets go after the slave traders back to those who captured them in Africa. Lets go after the slaver laborers who did that to early immigrate that worked to death after coming to the USA. Those who persecuted My ancestors who immigrated to the USA because of the potato famine...Who are you going to exempt on this and why. We going to audit the whole federal, state and local government. Who is going to do all of this and who is going to pay for this. We need to also go back to WWII add make everyone pay us back the money they owe us.... I am for all of this...

If you do not want to do this, then I will let this stand on it's own merits