Take this for what it's worth: I guess we are all here for our own reasons. But a post like that does not invite dialog or conversation...not that there's any requirement to dialog or converse. We can all post what we wish (within the Terms of Service.) A well-formulated sentence or two regarding the restrictions on Constitutional rights that are imposed on churches might have prompted a thoughtful reply, but you can't expect any of us to actually read someone's doctoral thesis. Now, from what I glean based upon a cursory view, I understand your point. In essence you're saying that the carrot of tax-exempt status is dangled to solidify a perversion of the Separation Clause. I would agree with that.
A 501C-3 is merely an acknowledgment made by the IRS that the holder of said permit is a non-profit charitable or religious organization. In essence the government knows the organization is taking in money in the form of donations and they are non-taxable. The only thing that ties an organization holding that permit to the government is if the IRS finds out that the organization is NOT a non-profit they can threaten to pull that permit and start levying taxes on whatever monies are taken in. I’ve been in ministry for YEARS and Never heard of any of those limitations nor have I ever seen them nor have I ever had to practice any of them. I preach and teach whatever I feel led to preach and teach and if the government doesn’t like it I’m protected by the 1st amendment but thus far not one individual or organization from the government has ever admonished me.
If that was the case, then it was stolen by countless other blogs and doesn't add anything of interest to the conversation. I have removed it.
I'll just run everything by you from now on Quoting facts in an article is called sharing information not stealing. And you can read the original document yourself here. Have a nice day. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
In my opinion, sharing information is all good but if a person doesn’t give the information due diligence in providing proofs for that information then all a poster is doing is furthering someone else’s rhetoric. If YOU had taken the time to study what the differences are between a 501C-3 and 4, 6 etc then we could have a nice conversation about how religious and charitable groups benefit or suffer from applying for tax exempt status. Ref. II Tim. 2:15 The one point I do agree with however is the smaller worship groups or “house churches” are far more preferable [to me] as opposed to mega churches. Any donations taken in do not go to a mother organization but are instead collected for a specific use whether to help a single mother pay her utility bill or for coffee and donuts for a pre-meeting fellowship. When no one within those types of organizations benefits from tithes or donations and does not fall into the heading of “profit” then a tax exempt status isn’t needed. Do Note: When a small organization becomes larger and decides to name their group and make it public, e.g. 1st street Bible study, Truth Church etc, and appoint positions within that group then they might want to assess whether to incorporate or not and go tax exempt or not. Note 2. Having a 501C-3 permit also benefits those who wish to donate monies to a non-profit. A good example might be AA. Alcoholics Anonymous is indeed a 501C-3 organization and any money given to them as a donation is tax deductible.
My church is now giving special privileges to The Vaccinated. I posted about it here in the thread on Has The Virus Changed Your Lifestyle.
How many people know what their church leader believes and does to get special privileges from the politicians for themself ? (might be more than one 'leader' per church). 1) Allowed to remain in their own house. 2) Allowed transportation/ to travel with fewer restrictions (i.e. not quarantined when others are) 3) Given government 'protection'. (from gangs, other churches, criminals, seizure of property (by government), ) etc 4) Given a generous (or more generous if any) food and water and gasoline allotment. All 'promised' (for what that's worth?) TO those who tell their 'flock' to go along with government statements, restrictions, and so forth. Only a few pastors shared this bulletin with their congregation. Hopefully there were more who just threw it away at least. But from all the fairy tales the last two years going on, it looks like most of them "went along" . (much more than just agreeing with the 501 contracts)
I'd like to see some evidence of this. I'm a cynical bastard but I'm not that cynical. For larger denominations, the edicts are coming from HQ. I know they are for the UMC...all of this stuff is decided at the state level.
Oh, I don't think it's as devious as all that. The churches went along with governors' edicts because their leaders were just as gullible as most of the rest of the country and because, unlike the Early Church, they have come to have their faith in government and the experts rather than in God. Of course, they were afraid of being permanently closed by order of the king or queen, whichever gender their governors may have chosen.
Dude.... Have you ever looked at much less had a 501 permit? I realize some of the stuff you’re writing comes out of the Obama administrations edict to the IRS to look at who is getting the permits and presumably slow down the process of awarding one if it was associated with a conservative group. They were CAUGHT in the act and now, from all indications, it’s back to where it’s supposed to be. The only problems the IRS faces is if it is a 501C-3, C-4 or C-6 because even though they’re all non-profit permits they’re all different. One allows for lobbyists and another doesn’t etc. The only preacher I have ever known to have any special privileges was my best friend, Winn Freeman and it wasn’t any of the things you listed. He could carry a suitcase of illegal drugs around and no one could say a word about it. His permit came directly from the governor of S. Carolina and was extended by 3 governors after that because he used those drugs as a show and tell for parents and law enforcement so they would know what they are. He was also the founder and president of the Wisdom in Living Life Ministry and yes, it is a 501C-3 ministry. My friend died a few years ago but his ministry goes on as one of the most reputable ministries in the south. No privileges, no extra gas, no free motel rooms....nada. Also, AGRM (association of gospel rescue missions) now called City Gate has around 200 rescue missions within that association. All of them have 501C-3 permits and I guarantee there are no special privileges for anyone. With the exception of being able to acquire USDA products, these missions have nothing to do with anything having to with the government other than reporting their monthly financial data to the IRS.
Speaking of, have you heard anything more about the preacher who got locked up in Canada for not only having church services but kicking the police out a couple of times when they tried to stop the services?
No, while I have heard of that, I have not heard any follow-ups. I am aware of a few small churches, including one near here, that continued meeting during our governor's ban on religion, but they didn't make a public show of it, just as many businesses quietly went about their business without taking it upon themselves to enforce the governor's edicts on masks.
I can tell you that my UMC pastor is operating from a position of personal fear regarding the virus, although he is just 3 years older than I am and his only chronic health issue is kidney stones. Other than that the guy owns a small vineyard and is in the field every day with his son, so he is not frail. But I could feel his fear from Day One. His wife is "VP level" in health care businesses (travels to foreign countries and helps establish health care systems in some capacity) and is likely a conduit for industry propaganda as well. Frankly, I wonder how heavy a hand each denomination's lawyers have in some of the decisions, from both "comply with the law" and "personal liability" perspectives. If a church defies the government and a congregant gets ill and sues them, that church shall find no sympathetic ear in today's courts. I'm not justifying any of this. I think churches have failed miserably in this mess, much to the delight of all too many in this world. But faith in institutions is always misplaced. They have their own survival instincts.
That's a big part of it, I'm sure, and that is a huge change from what we had before this travesty. Neither businesses nor churches were held responsible for diseases that a customer or congregant might pass onto a fellow customer or congregant before, and the idea that they can be held responsible is the thing that allows governments and the media to control them. In the case of a church, we have to decide whether we even want to be part of a church that is controlled by government.