From: fiona64	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Regardless of any verbal commentary, placing that flyer inside the bulletin is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Your mom's church is essentially talking politics from the pulpit and should lose its tax-exempt status as a result.

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:39 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The Establishment Clause prevents federal and state government from establishing a religion or preventing citizens from practicing their chosen religion. The Constitution does not apply to private institutions.

	From: dulcinbradbury	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

It cuts both ways in later law & interpretation. Because the Constitution established a separation between Church & State, later interpretations and laws have supported that separation in both directions. There are many churches that may lose tax-exempt status because they were preaching politics.

	From: fiona64	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:48 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Actually, my understanding of the establishment clause is that it goes in both directions ... churches are not allowed to use their bulletins, etc., to campaign for candidates, ballot measures, etc. The establishment clause is part of the reason for church's tax-exempt status, from my understanding (which, I admit, may be imperfect on this specific issue).

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:57 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Your argument may hold water if only religious groups were granted tax-exempt status. However, such status is also granted to public schools, small businesses, and other groups.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 23rd, 2006 08:31 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Firstly, I'm curious as to how either public schools or small businesses are seen as tax exempt. (Public schools are generally a governmental *body*, and small businesses still *very much* have to pay taxes.)

What you may be thinking of here is the 501(c)3 exemption for *educational foundations and private schools* as well as *charitable organisations*; in those cases, they actually have to follow the exact same rules as churches do (a general prohibition on lobbying of any sort, though a church can say something like how it believes homosexuality is wrong (for example); telling a church congregation (even through flyers) not to "vote for people who support homosexuality" or to write their congresscritters to pass a law banning domestic partner benefits crosses the line, so the courts have held).

In fact, the prohibition on 501(c)3 lobbying is strict enough that for purposes of fundraising even groups like People for the American Way set up 501(c)4 foundations for the political activism ends; with a 501(c)4 group you can lobby as long as it's not in support of a specific candidate or party.

(Of note, there are only three nationwide dominionist groups with 501(c)4 status--the Traditional Values Coalition, the Eagle Forum, and the Christian Coalition. In fact, the CC lost its 501(c)4 status for several years as its voter guides were seen as excessively partisan. In other words, MOST dominionist lobbying groups are in fact in violation of this law, and a few have been investigated for it--the Family Research Council originally started as a 501(c)4 split from Focus on the Family (which is 501(c)3) because of the very real risk that FotF might have lost its tax-exempt status. (FRC now is, interestingly, 501(c)3.)

And yes, churches *and* educational foundations can lose not only their federal but state tax-exempt status for it (in fact, the University of the Cumberlands *nee* Cumblerland College may be about to lose its tax exempt status *and* accreditation in the state of Kentucky for merely kicking out a gay student; this is the case even though outside of Louisville, Lexington and Covington there are no Fairness ordinances or amendments).

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 23rd, 2006 08:33 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I imagine I was thinking of 501(c)3. I worked as a cashier for a few years, so I was specifically referring to sales-tax exemption.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 02:55 am (UTC)		(Link)

Ah, 's ok then. (If you were a cashier for a company that has charity affiliation programs--like where a charity can sign up and the store gives X percent of a purchase or the sales tax to the charity--I definitely get where the confusion is arising from. A lot of 501(c)3 groups do participate in these charity-affinity programs--and, sadly, dominionist groups are increasingly abusing charity-affinity programs as a major source of income. The Kentucky AFA is in fact a pretty big offender with using these "charity affinity" programs, hence why I'm aware of it.)

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 24th, 2006 04:18 am (UTC)		(Link)

No, that's not what I was talking about, actually. I worked at Wal-Mart for nearly two years. People from certain groups, churches, schools, etc., would have cards which gave them exemption from sales tax. It may be a state thing, or something particular to the store.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 11:54 am (UTC)		(Link)

Actually, that is pretty much what I was talking about--they get cards, etc. and as a 501(c)3 they get tax off (some companies give what would have been collected in sales tax to the company).

The specific benefit varies from company to company, but the use of "charity cards" to avoid paying taxes is another way that dominionist groups use the group itself as essentially a tax shelter to conduct illegal lobbying.

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:55 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I see. I never ran into any dominionist groups during my time there, unless you've really got something against Girls Inc. :-P.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 02:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Girls, Inc. ironically has itself been the target of dominionist protests (in that they--like practically any other group that teaches girls how to be assertive--are accused of promoting "Feminism" and abortion), so it's safe to say that Girls, Inc. is no friend of dominionists :3

I'm thinking in part how the AFA operates here in Kentucky, in that they tell their members to give their discount codes (for Kroger, Thorton's, etc.) specifically so AFA-KY can earn gift cards (an example at their own website) as well as more traditional charity-affinity programs (examples here for Kroger and here for a local gas chain).

These programs are generally meant for legitimate charitable groups (like Boy Scouts, etc.) for fundraising and for tax relief, but in this case are being abused by a dominionist group (and in fact, with the examples with Staples and Office Depot could even be seen as fraudulent use of the discount program).

	From: ellid	Date: April 23rd, 2006 08:51 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Public schools are tax exempt solely because as a government entity, they are *funded* by taxes. Small businesses, unless specifically set up as non-profits, most certainly *are* subject to state and local taxes such as payroll tax, property tax (if they own their land and buildings), and so on.

	From: aberranteyes	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:49 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The Constitution does not apply to private institutions.

By telling us this, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away.

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:56 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Do shut up.

	From: sunfell	Date: April 23rd, 2006 11:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Was that necessary? Please try to maintain a civil tone here. Telling people to 'do shut up' is not civil. If you have a difference of opinion with another poster, please take it outside the community.

I find your icon rather ironic, as The Buddha once told someone to use the following guidelines when they addressed another:

Is it true?
Is it necessary?
Is it kind?

Remember these three rules next time, please.

	From: bhavanibbana	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:20 am (UTC)		(Link)

It is not as ironic as you might think. I assume by "the Buddha" you are referring to Siddhartha Buddha. My icon is Amida Buddha, the Buddha of Infinite Light. Furthermore, many sayings have been attributed to Siddhartha, as many false as authentic. I find it ironic that you, in chiding me for my rudeness, are also being rather confrontational with me (albeit passive-aggresively).

	From: aberranteyes	Date: April 24th, 2006 03:09 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Why?

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 23rd, 2006 08:44 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Actually, the courts have historically held that so long as a church, educational foundation or charitable group received tax exemptions (under 501(c)3 status) that the groups receiving tax exempt status and whose donations were tax-deductible were legally prohibited from lobbying or electioneering.

In fact, Focus on the Family got in trouble for this a few years back (FotF, like most dominionist groups, is organised as a 501(c)3 for tax purposes) and had to create the Family Research Council (under 501(c)4 status, which allows lobbying so long as it is nonpartisan--and which does not allow donations to the group to be tax deductible) to save its own tax-exempt status. (Notably, both groups could be in trouble now, as the FRC has split completely and is now a 501(c)3.) This is also why Focus on the Family as well as the American Family Association often have state affiliates or even groups that are state partners (for example, the AFA of Kentucky is 501(c)3, but Frank Simon runs a predecessor group called "Freedom's Heritage Forum" which is a de facto wing of AFA Kentucky and which has 501(c)4 status; "Freedom's Heritage Forum" has also been the major distributor of partisan dominionist "voting guides" in the state, and likewise has been investigated for partisan lobbying (illegal under the 501(c)4 exemption).

In fact, churches have lost their tax exempt status in past and been forced to pay back taxes to the IRS for illegal electioneering, as have educational foundations (aka "private school exemptions") and charity groups. Evidence of electioneering has ranged from stating opposition to the war in Iraq to handing out Christian Coalition and AFA voter's guides in church circulars.

In other words, it's considered very *much* a two-way street as far as taxes go. The church gets tax-exemption and donations to it are tax deductible, but on the other hand, they are not generally supposed to get involved in the political process (as far as lobbying for certain bills to be passed or not passed, etc.) Were federal and state taxes not an issue, this would be less of an issue.

Also of note, dominionist "tax protester churches" have on occasion refused to pay taxes and refused to register as tax-exempt churches due to the fact they are quite partisan. (Most of these groups are in fact linked to "Christian Militia" groups, tax-protester movements within the militia community, and Christian Identity groups. More info on these groups here; at least one publisher of dominionist homeschool curriculum (the "CLASS curriculum" published by the Church of Christian Liberty in Illinois) is linked with "Christian Patriot" groups of this sort and has had the Minutemen and Gary North (both linked with militia groups including "Christian Identity" militias) as speakers in the church.)

	From: ellid	Date: April 23rd, 2006 08:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The Constitution does not apply to private institutions.

Um, no. Private institutions are just as much subject to the laws of the land as any other entity. This sort of blatant politicking is unconstitutional and should be reported immediately to the IRS as a possible violation of their tax-exempt status.

	From: elffin	Date: April 25th, 2006 06:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

It is specifically part of the Internal Revenue Service code that any religion's tax-exempt status is predicated upon their refraining from using thier tax-exempt resources (services, mass, pulpit, flyers, etc. etc.) from political endorsements. They seem to have tried to cleverly word their flyer in order to merely instigate discussion and inform churchgoers of an important issue, but it is in fact a politically motivated action and a political endorsement.

They should lose their tax-exempt status. And they're not private /per se/ - they are beholden to the IRS for their taxexempt status and must file publicly available tax returns.

	From: dabroots	Date: April 23rd, 2006 07:52 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I think it is, indeed, a matter of a case-by-case basis. They aren't endorsing candidates, but they are endorsing specific legislation. I haven't boned up on what is, and is not allowed under the tax-exempt laws. It'll be interesting to see how cases develop under our current Supreme Court lineup.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 23rd, 2006 08:22 pm (UTC)		(Link)

This is one of those areas where, as I understand it, it is a VERY gray area.

If the brochure advocates voting for specific parties or specific candidates, then technically it's a violation of 501(c)3 status; if they do *not* advocate specific candidates or parties, but merely say something like "homosexuality is wrong", they *may* have more wiggle room.

The IRS has stated fairly recently, though, that it is disapproving of *any* sort of politicking in churches.

The general legal standard on this seems to be that if such a flyer is being sent as if it had the tactit approval of the church, it's a potential violation.

One thing that may help, too--just out of curiosity, does the flyer say whom they are from? (If it's from a lobbying group--like the Traditional Values Coalition or one of the 501(c)4 groups linked with the AFA or Focus on the Family, that also qualifies as a violation; if it's from a 501(c)3 group, depending on the content it could be a violation from BOTH groups, as 501(c)3 groups are generally *not* allowed to engage in political lobbying).

In fact, if a 501(c)4 group promotes specific candidates or parties THIS can earn them a violation in certain circumstances (the Christian Coalition lost its 501(c)4 status for partisan politicking and only this year regained it).

I would probably recommend in this case contacting Americans United and DefCon America; both have projects specifically involving investigation of potential violation of tax-exempt status by churches and other 501(c)3 groups.

	From: velvetpage	Date: April 23rd, 2006 09:11 pm (UTC)		(Link)

They should lose their non-profit status for that - blatantly political flyers should not appear inside the sanctuary at all.

	From: sunfell	Date: April 23rd, 2006 11:22 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I think that the churches have crossed a line here. A fuzzy line, but a line nonetheless. If anything, this is influence peddling, or lobbying, and I am not sure that churches are allowed to do that.

Sure hope some authorities take a look at this. Perhaps you should alert your state Attorney General. He or she would know more about this.

	From: dabroots	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:12 am (UTC)		(Link)

Well . . . I'm not sure that I really want to call in either the feds or the state attorney general on my mama's church. Believe me, I'm sticking out kind of like a token intellectual type at this chruch during my stay here in town and I'm sure that I'd be pinpointed as the whistle-blower pretty damned quickly. No, I don't want to do that.

	From: sunfell	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:28 am (UTC)		(Link)

Here's the bottom line: they want to legislate discrimination, and if allowed, downright hatred. Should this be permitted? Should this blight be permitted to spread?

If not you, then someone should. After they've nailed the gays, fertile women, and scientists, they'll start after anyone whom they perceive as 'intellectual'- no matter how well hidden they might be.

Remember that.

	From: dabroots	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:52 am (UTC)		(Link)

Feel free to come to my town and visit each of the Southern Baptist churches until you find the right one. I might change my mind, but I'm not really sure that there's a case for it, even. My guess is that a similar flyer is being distributed in hundreds of fundamentalist churches throughout the country, specific to respective state legislatures that have not already passed such a law.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 03:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'd even be willing to bet I can name one of the four groups responsible:

a) the Christian Coalition (yes, they do still exist, they *just* got their 501(c)4 back after having been penalised by the IRS for several years for illegal electioneering)
b) Family Research Council/Focus on the Family or a state affiliate
c) American Family Association or a state affiliate or connected group
d) Traditional Values Coalition

It would be very useful IMHO to find which group printed the flyer that was included in the church circular, because--as you said--if they're doing it in one, they probably are doing it in *most* pente and fundamentalist churches in the area.

	From: dabroots	Date: April 24th, 2006 03:14 am (UTC)		(Link)

The flyer is from a group called the Illinois Family Institute and you can find their website at www.protectmarriageillinois.org I believe that's the same organization you'd find by clicking on the link on my post.

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 11:47 am (UTC)		(Link)

Ah, yes, the Illinois Family Institute--a true hive of scum and villany.

(For those unaware, the Illinois Family Institute is a state-level affiliate of Focus on the Family (and yes, this is by FotF's own admission). Not only do they have a history of being virulently anti-gay (even protesting the "Gay Games" in Chicago) but is probably the leading dominionist group in the state (having links with, among others, the Constitution Party, a dominionist political party that is itself heavily linked with "Christian Militia" and racist groups) and has even joined the ranks of dominionist groups dead-agenting the ADL for its statements warning about dominionism (example here--in this case, the dead-agenting was the result of the ADL expressing grave concerns to the candidate in question about "appeals to religious faith" in politicking).

(Per Foundation Center's database, the Illinois Family Institute--like most dominionist lobbying organisations--is registered as a 501(c)3 with the IRS meaning it is conducting its lobbying activity illegally.)

I would strongly recommend at this point contacting Americans United and DefCon America *both* about this, making specific complaints about both the church involved *and* the Illinois Family Institute. Americans United can be contacted at americansunited@au.org and DefCon America can be contacted at Tips@DefConAmerica.org with their respective reporting hotlines; both would be highly appreciative if you could forward them copies of the offending flier and give all the details you can.

You may also wish to contact the IRS directly. This website has instructions on how to forward a complaint (for "unreported income" I'd list all their income from the 2004 form 990 listed above and note that they are engaging in illegal electioneering; forward a copy of the flier and a copy of their form 990 as well to show they are a nonprofit illegally electioneering)

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 11:51 am (UTC)		(Link)

Another option for reporting to tax authorities is not only the IRS (which you can probably look in the Blue Pages and find a local number) but possibly *state* tax authorities as well.

Illinois Department of Revenue takes complaints of tax fraud online; they may be contacted at this website.

	From: dabroots	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Thanks for the information. I'll contact the organizations you mentioned, but not the IRS.

(Something to keep in mind is that this church is not simply a church that my mother happens to attend, but one in which my family's been active--including myself until I was sixteen years old in the 1970's--since about 1957. I'm in a tenuous position here, and I don't want to be the focal point of something between the church and the IRS.)

	From: dogemperor	Date: April 24th, 2006 01:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

In that case you could simply report the Illinois Family Institute to the IRS (rather than the church).

If there's a diplomatic way to warn the head of the church about the danger of promoting these things in church circulars, that could be helpful too.

	From: dabroots	Date: April 24th, 2006 02:34 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Part of me would like to stand up in that congregation and renounce my membership (which remains intact although I haven't attended regularly since 1975), but that would be with my 90 year-old mama sitting right next to me. Bad idea.