IRS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?

It’s that time, once again. It’s time for the mainstream press to be terrified of that fact that, for millions of Americans, the content of their religious beliefs frequently has implications for what happens inside voting booths on Election Day.

This happens all the time on both the Religious Left and the Religious Right, although it appears to be more common in sermons on the political left (click here for more on that from Baptist progressive Ryan Burge).

If you have any doubts about press concerns about this issue, see this recent collection of headlines from one of those daily Pew Research Center emails about religion in the news:

* Churches are breaking the law and endorsing in elections, experts say. The IRS looks the other way — ProPublica

* Virginia pastor investigated for campaigning during church services — The Associated Press

* The senator-pastor from Georgia mixes politics and preaching on the trail — The New York Times

* Black church tradition survives Georgia’s voting changes — The Associated Press

* ‘We need to make America godly again.’ The growing political influence of Latino evangelicals — CNN

* Battle for Catholic vote inflames Pa. governor’s race — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Remember that GetReligion mantra: Politics is the true faith of most elite-newsroom professionals, who — functionally — believe that politics is the only answer If you want to get something done in the real world. Politics is real. Religion? Not so much. Thus, it is logical that religious faith is important to the degree that it affects politics.

Is the blue-zip-code press more worried about political influence on the conservative side of this equation? Of course, especially this soon after an earthquake like the fall of Roe v. Wade. I would also admit that, at the moment, the stunning rise of nondenominational, independent evangelical and Pentecostal churches has made it even harder for reporters to cover what is and what is not happening in the institutions that define conservative Christianity..

This brings me to that ProPublica investigation that hit social-media the other day: “Churches Are Breaking the Law by Endorsing in Elections, Experts Say. The IRS Looks the Other Way.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Plug-In: NASA's amazing space images, fighting in Ukraine and the top religion stories

, , , ,
Plug-In: NASA's amazing space images, fighting in Ukraine and the top religion stories

“Monsters are everywhere in the Bible — and some are even human.”

These are some of the religion headlines that caught my attention this past week.

To be honest, though, I haven’t paid as close attention to the news as I normally do.

As I previewed in the last Weekend Plug-in three weeks ago, I took off a week for vacation (I had a wonderful time seeing country shows with my sister and parents in Branson, Mo.). Then I took off a week for a reporting trip to the Chicago area.

But in the Windy City, I came down with what at first I thought were allergies. Eventually, I tested positive for COVID-19. The experience threw me for a loop. I finally tested negative Friday night. I’m feeling much better.

However, I have no doubt I’ve missed a whole lot of the best reads in the world of faith. Feel free to catch me up!

One thing I didn’t miss: those amazing first images from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope. Think there might be a religion angle there? Enter the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner with this fascinating take:

The images raise issues for followers of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and affirm the thoughts of Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, who in the 1700s imagined the possibility of galaxies beyond our own, says Harvard government professor Michael Rosen.

Religion News Service’s Claire Giangravé quotes Vatican astrophysicist Brother Guy Consolmagno:

“The science behind this telescope is our attempt to use our God-given intelligence to understand the logic of the universe,” Consolmagno wrote, adding that “the universe wouldn’t work if it weren’t logical.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christians, Jews, Muslims and lobbyists left and right fret over SCOTUS 'donor privacy' case  

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Christians, Jews, Muslims and lobbyists left and right fret over SCOTUS 'donor privacy' case  

What cause could ever possibly unite Christian Right activists, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Zionist Organization, "pro-family," "pro-life," "pro-choice" and gun-rights lobbies, Mitch McConnell, the American Civil Liberties Union, Chamber of Commerce, Judicial Watch, NAACP, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Southern Poverty Law Center, Columbia University's First Amendment institute and religious-liberty advocates?

Answer: These and many more are allied in the Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra case (#19-251), which the U.S. Supreme Court put on its upcoming docket January 8.

Yes, that Becerra is Xavier, as in President Biden's controversial pick for secretary of Health and Human Services, acting in his previous role as California's attorney general. Moreover, this situation implicates the track record of his predecessor as A.G., Kamala Harris — now U.S. vice president and a major 2024 presidential prospect.

At issue is "donor privacy." Non-profit groups cannot operate or raise money in the state of California unless they give its attorney general the names and addresses of their major donors, the same list that's required as an appendix to their federal IRS returns. The non-profits argue that this violates their right to freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment.

Obviously this is something for alert media eyes, including pros on the religion beat.

Adding to news interest, this case displays contrasting beliefs of the U.S. Department of Justice in its Trump Administration brief filed last November (.pdf here) versus its revised stance under the new Biden Administration (.pdf here). The Trump brief strongly backs non-profit interest groups. The Biden brief dodges the question and asks the court to bounce the case for further investigation.

Religion specialists note: The Supreme Court consolidated the Americans for Prosperity case, raised by the libertarian political foundation established by the Koch brothers, with a second appeal from the Thomas More Law Center. This second agency provides free legal representation for "people of faith" to uphold "the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values and the sanctity of human life."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Washington Post and ReligionUnplugged both land stories on Mormon $100 billion slush fund

, , , , ,

Well, it was a race to the finish as to who’d land the story Monday night about a secret –- and possibly illegal - -$100 billion fund made up of Mormon tithes

We think the Washington Post made it to the finish line first, but it was neck-in-neck with Paul Glader, the former Wall Street Journal reporter who now oversees Religion Unplugged. It should be noted that GetReligion and Religion UnPlugged do share some content, but I’m not privy to how Glader got the story other than his note atop his piece that says a source called him in November.

Glader was working solo for the past month or so; the Post had three people on this story plus another two helping out, not to mention the former IRS official they pulled in for advice. I am glad that the Post didn’t just rely on its business reporters but pulled Michelle Boorstein, its senior religion-beat writer, onto the story.

I am curious why the two Salt Lake newpapers totally missed this story as did the Journal, which is usually on top of financial scandals but has continues to lag way behind on breaking religion news.

We will start with ReligionUnplugged:

NEW YORK — A whistleblower complaint filed at the Internal Revenue Service in November by a knowledgeable church member alleges that a non-profit supporting organization controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used member tithes to amass more than $100 billion in a set of investment funds and the Church misled members about uses of the money.

The complaint may be the most important look at LDS finances in decades, a window into one of the wealthiest religious organizations in the United States and the world. Details of the IRS filing reveal financial assets largely hidden from the church’s membership (often known as “Mormons”) and the public view.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Democrats' 2020 surprise: Should churches that oppose same-sex marriage lose tax exemptions?

, , , , , , , ,
Democrats' 2020 surprise: Should churches that oppose same-sex marriage lose tax exemptions?

THE QUESTION: 

Should U.S. religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage lose tax exemption?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

At CNN’s recent “Equality Town Hall” for Democratic presidential candidates, co-sponsored with the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, anchor Don Lemon prodded Beto O’Rourke on whether “religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities” should “lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.”

O’Rourke (who self-identifies as Catholic) immediately answered “yes,” because “there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America” that opposes such rights. “As president, we’re going to make that a priority.” The other candidates on stage assailed discrimination without specifying tax exemption. O’Rourke has, of course, dropped out of the White House race.

Later, Pete Buttigieg (an Episcopalian in a gay marriage) agreed that religious organizations such as schools “absolutely … should not be able to discriminate” and remain tax exempt, but he said rival O’Rourke hadn’t thought through that penalizing houses of worship would create a divisive “war.”

If government were to tax income or property or end tax deductions for donations due to traditional beliefs on sexuality, the targets would include the Catholic Church, the two biggest U.S. Protestant denominations and the largest African-American church body, countless evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Orthodox Judaism and all Muslim centers and mosques.

O’Rourke subsequently seemed to back off, emphasizing that exemptions should be denied tradition-minded agencies that provide public services like “higher education, or health care, or adoption,” whereas practices within religious congregations are not the government’s business. (That might mean the government wouldn’t impose tax penalties due to sermons, parish education or refusal of gay weddings and clergy ordinations.)

The tax proposal poses palpable danger for a vast number of U.S. institutions, whether congregations or religious schools and agencies.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Happy July 4th! Now for an update on Tennesseans arguing about 'online' ministers

, , , , , , , , , ,

Happy July 4th, everybody. This is certainly a day to celebrate the various forms of freedom that Americans cherish — including some that are pretty confusing, when push comes to shove.

I am thinking, in particular, about the First Amendment and the edgy legal battle that is unfolding here in Tennessee about the state’s ability to enforce a law setting some standards about who is an ordained minister and who is not. If you want to catch up on press coverage of this battle, click here for my first post and then here for the podcast discussing this topic: “This is not funny: Does the state have the right to call some faiths 'real' and others 'fakes'?”

It’s time for an update, since the status of click-that-mouse ministers with the Universal Life Church ended up in front of a federal judge yesterday. The Nashville Tennessean team produced a story for Gannett newspapers — which now dominate the volunteer state — that ran with this headline: “Judge questions 'rational basis' of state law blocking ministers ordained online from performing marriages.”

The bottom line: Gannett is covering this case as a battle about LGBTQ rights, since many same-sex couples choose nontraditional ministers to perform their marriage rites. There is little or no evidence that pros at The Tennessean realize that this case will pivot on the U.S. government’s attempts — think Internal Revenue Service — to establish some guidelines to help officials determine when religious institutions exist primarily for the purpose of profit or fraud. Here’s the overture:

A federal judge on Wednesday repeatedly pressed state lawyers to explain a "rational basis" for a new Tennessee law that bans ministers ordained online from performing marriages — and he didn't seem to get an answer that satisfied him.

Chief District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said a lawsuit challenging the law raised "serious constitutional issues" that should be considered at trial by the end of the year. Until then, Crenshaw said, ministers ordained online could continue to perform legal marriages.

The Universal Life Church Monastery, a ministry that ordains ministers online, sued Tennessee over the law last month, saying it violated religious protections of the First Amendment among other things.

Yes, there certainly are “serious constitutional issues” at stake here. I think any serious church-state activist — left or right — would agree with that statement and with the judge’s decision that fights over this Tennessee law deserve a serious day in court.

So what are Tennessee lawmaker’s worried about? We will get to that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is not funny: Does the state have the right to call some faiths 'real' and others 'fakes'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
This is not funny: Does the state have the right to call some faiths 'real' and others 'fakes'?

Back in my Denver dedace, I turned into a solid Denver Broncos fan.

That’s normal, of course, in Colorado. Following the Broncos was like, well, a RELIGION or something.

That’s precisely what I argued in a memo to the editor in 1988, when I argued that I should be part of the Rocky Mountain News team that was sent to cover the Broncos at the Super Bowl. I made a kind of sociological argument that, if Bronco fans were not practicing a religion of some kind, then the Denver area didn’t have a religion.

I didn’t win that argument. Then, during the media-fest preceding the game, this happened (as covered by the New York Times):

Most of the Denver Broncos and the Washington Redskins will join Saturday in a prayer meeting that is believed to be the first to bring together National Football League players from opposing teams on the eve of any game - much less a Super Bowl.

The meeting has created a sensitive situation. Front-office executives of both clubs are reportedly against the joint meeting, which they feel could diminish the competitive fervor the teams should take into such an important game.

John Beake, the Broncos' normally expansive general manager, was abrupt when asked about it this morning. 'Can't Say Anything'

''I can't say anything about it,'' he said, and told the caller to speak to the club's news media relations director, Jim Saccomano.

Yes, the editor asked me (still back in Denver) to dive in an help with coverage of this controversy.

In a way, this subject — broadly defined — is what host Todd Wilken and I talked about during this week’s Crossroads podcast. (Click here to tune that in.) What is a “religion”? Who gets to decide what is a ”real” religion and what is a “fake” religion?

The news hook for this discussion was Gannett Tennessee Network coverage of a new state law that would ban wedding ceremonies being conducted by people who have been ordained through online sites that hand out ordination certificates after a few clicks of a mouse. Here’s the GetReligion post on that.

Needless to say, the lawyers linked to the Universal Life Church Monastery website are not to crazy about that and they are saying that this law violates their First Amendment-protected freedom to practice their religious convictions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As I head out the door: Online ordinations fight in Tennessee raises old church-state question

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you have read GetReligion for a while — several years at least — you know that when you see images of mountains in East Tennessee and North Carolina, that means that it’s finally vacation season at this here weblog.

Well, “VACATION” doesn’t mean that we close down. It just means that people come and go — not to be confused with Bobby Ross, Jr., heading to Texas Ranger games — so you may see business days with one or two posts instead of the usual three. But the cyber doors will never close. I’m about to leave my home office in one set of mountains (the Cumberlands) to hide away (near a WIFI cafe) for a couple of days in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

But before I go, let me point readers to a very interesting church-state story developing here in the Volunteer State, a story that raises a very important question that shows up in religion news every now and then. The headline: “Internet church sues Tennessee over law banning weddings by online-ordained ministers.”

That question is: What — in legal, not theological terms — is a “church”? Here is the overture, care of the Knoxville News-Sentinel:

A Seattle-based online church is suing the state of Tennessee over a new law that bars online-ordained ministers from performing weddings.

Universal Life Church Ministries filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. … The law, which states that "persons receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite of matrimony" was to go into effect July 1. But Chief District Judge Waverly Crenshaw scheduled a July 3 hearing in Nashville on the restraining order requested by ULCM attorneys. …

ULCM describes itself as a "non-denominational, non-profit religious organization famous worldwide for its provision of free, legal ordinations to its vast membership over the internet." It has ordained more than 20 million people, including singer-actress Lady Gaga, talk show host Stephen Colbert and actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

The bottom line is right here:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Does deductibility really influence church giving? Salt Lake Tribune skirts the question, sort of

, , , ,

The fact that Americans who itemize their income tax deductions can also deduct their donations to the church, mosque, synagogue or (recognized) religious outpost of their choice is a cherished part of American taxation, something that's not true in all nations of the world.

Now, the latest tax reform proposal knocking around Congress may -- or may not -- put a dent in such deducting. If the "standard deduction" of $5,500 for individuals and $11,000 for married couples is doubled, as proponents want, the thinking goes, more folks will skip itemizing and just go with the higher number. No itemizing means less in the collection plate, they theorize.

But here's the journalistic question: Does a mere assertion mean something's a fact? Logic would say no, but sometimes a media outlet will seem to glide around logic for a compelling story. At the least, that's how it could look to a reader.

The Salt Lake Tribune, serving a state where returning tithe is mandatory for Mormons, dives right in to the charitable deduction issue, leading with a dramatic point:

A Republican tax plan being debated on Capitol Hill maintains the deduction for charitable giving but still may have an unintended consequence that could hurt donations to churches and nonprofit groups.
The impact of the tax bill — if passed and signed into law — could mean less revenue for the LDS Church and other denominations and faith-based organizations as well as groups like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and humanitarian operations.


Please respect our Commenting Policy