Churches vs. Other Nonprofits (Again)

Scott Wells offers useful observations on churches and political endorsements.

But I still haven't found an answer to a question I had the last time this subject came up:

Why are churches treated differently from other nonprofits? This isn't simply a pitch to tax the churches (which I have suggested before). Instead,it's about why churches as nonprofits are classified separately from secular nonprofits.

Scott says the First Amendment is the reason, but (perhaps because I'm not a lawyer) I don't follow that.

Both, say, the East Bainbridge United Way and the First Baptist Church face IRS restrictions in how they can comment on politics (specifically, neither can endorse political candidates). Neither organization pays taxes.

Yet there's a whole special category of "church" for First Baptist Church. One side effect: Organizations that function as a church but are for some reason not structured in the way the IRS thinks a church should be end up being held up for special scrutiny.

It seems to me that to treat the First Baptist Church differently than the East Bainbridge United Way (or any other nonprofit) at best skirts the Establishment Clause: it privileges an organization simply because it is a "church". On the other side, it also forces that organization to justify itself as a church. Talk about government entanglement with religion!

So can someone explain the justification for this difference? I'd really like to know -- and I didn't want to hijack Scott's thread in the process.

More on IRS Ecclesiology

Discussion continues at Scott Wells' blog about churches and IRS status, in light of the agency's ruling that stripped a virtual organization of its church status.

As I noted in the update to my earlier post spinning off of Scott's, another commenter points out the possibility that churches could be simply lumped with all nonprofits, avoiding the separate classification.

So why is there a separate category for churches from other nonprofits? Forget my earlier suggestion about taxing churches; why isn't it sufficient simply to treat all nonprofits the same, including churches?

Two tentative answers I can imagine are that

1) Churches would then have to file form 990 reports on revenues and expenses, including the top 5 highest-paid employees, which they don't now.

So what? (Other than political backlash.)

2) They might have to justify other kinds of expenses -- yet I'm not so sure that's true.

But in fact, I'm asking this question in genuine ignorance.

Taxing the Church

Scott blogs about a court decision that finds an online religious group doesn't qualify for tax exemption under IRS rules.

As neither a lawyer nor an expert in virtual churches, I can't speak directly to the substance of the specific issue. But my first reaction was to raise a question I've had many times over the year when the issue of churches and tax law comes up -- most often in the context of whether churches can or should endorse political candidates.

Now I happen to think it is almost always a bad idea to make such specific endorsements from the pulpit. (I hedge only to cover the possibility that if I were a preacher and an Adolf Hitler was running for president, the the temptation would be too great not to stand up and declare my opposition. [Uh-oh, did I just set a Godwin's Law record?])

But I've long wondered whether it wouldn't be better to abolish the tax exemption on churches on grounds that to permit it (and then to have to police it) involves excessive entanglement of state with church.

If I were a graduate student in economics or perhaps public policy, I think there might be an interesting paper in examining what the actual impact would be on churches if they were taxed as regular corporations are. After all, much of their expenses would be deductible anyway (as operational expenses, salaries, etc.); probably the real impact would be at the local level, in the realm of property taxes, and aren't there some churches that voluntarily pay a property-tax equivalent to offset service costs from their local municipalities?

Update:

Steve Caldwell, in a comment to the original Scott Wells post that triggered my musing here, suggests what might be an easier solution: No separate category for churches vs. other non-profits.

Paging ChaliceChick

A nominee for criminal justice *headdesk* of the day?

The Lawsuit Myth?

I'm a huge fan of Free Range Kids, whose proprietor was a grad school classmate. This post is no exception. But I especially liked this comment -- which called into question an assumption that even the free-rangers tend to blithely accept:

Everyone says “sue happy America” much like everyone says “the world is such a dangerous place.” It is basically the same thing – an impression from the media as to this with no definitive evidence of such.

Now, one anecdotal comment on an Internet blog is not the singular of data. But I've long suspected that the notion of America as being extraordinarily litigious is at best overblown, at worst an out-and-out falsehood perpetrated by those who would like to shield the powerful (incompetent doctors, manufacturers of shoddy products, etc.) by eviscerating about the only form of legal redress available to the powerless.

I'm sure it's a lot more complex, and there's always the "Whose ox is being gored?" factor; I'm a journalist, so naturally I'm concerned about runaway libel juries. I'm just saying that the assumption of lawsuit-happy America is one worth examining much more closely.

Speechless

I cannot summon the words to express my sadness and outrage at this particular news development.

Juneau County DA warns districts on sex ed law
Teaching curriculum could lead to criminal charges against teachers, he writes

Plus: Debra Haffner puts this disturbing story in a larger, even more disturbing context, but also offers a bracing response.

A 2-tiered system of religious liberty

A case in California challenges the state's system of recognizing only five faiths -- Protestant Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Native American spirituality -- in authorizing who is to be prison chaplains. (h/t The Wild Hunt)

And a conservative religious organization called the WallBuilders seeks a ruling that reinforces that two-tiered system.

A couple of thoughts...

1) UUs should be (and I'm sure are) part of the coalition seeking to overturn that discriminatory law, purely on grounds of our broader principles. But bluntly, since so many people consider UUs not Christian, I can't help wondering if non-Christian UU chaplains would be rejected too?

2) I can't think of a more appropriate name for the petitioning anti-pagan group than WallBuilders. (Even if that's not how they meant it.)

"Crush" Videos: The Religious Dimension

You laugh? Jeremy Biles is both thoughtful and serious.

A long time ago...

...meaning back in Middle School and High School, DairyStateDad wanted to be a lawyer.

(I was telling DairyStateKid #2 this yesterday and he asked why. I said because I envisioned lawyers as helping folks who were wrongfully accused of crimes or who were harmed by others and sought justice. By which I meant product liability plaintiffs' lawyers and malpractice lawyers. OK, remember, this was the naivete of adolescence. Early adolescence.)

Then I discovered film-making and later I discovered journalism and that was the end of that. But I still have a fascination with the law and write about it when I have an opportunity. And notwithstanding the fact that I laugh at most of the jokes that people make about lawyers, I generally admire the law and people who practice it. Good thing too, given that DairyStateMom, although not a lawyer herself, works very closely with them.

But I've always felt just a little bit frustrated with the standard adversarial system of law. Winston Churchill's line about Democracy being "the worst system, except for all the others" has a ring of truth.

This post really captures exactly why.