ACLU Opposes Tax Exemptions For All Churches
Posted on July 28, 2005
Just reading the two statements above should wake up the Christians on both the left and right! And after learning this myself, the question came to me….how could anyone say this organization is not anti-Christian? I know all of you are wanting to see the evidence yourself, and while I don’t have the official policy to refer you to, I have learned this information from a very well respected author, William A. Donahue, in his book Twilight of Libery/The Legacy of The ACLU. Donahue has attained their policy guide and is one of the most trusted experts on the ACLU.
So let the story telling begin….
Recently down in Dixie, the ACLU have been discussing revoking the tax exemption of certain Churches. However, what they really want is to revoke it on all Christian Churches. Its in their history, along with their bias. They don’t hate religion, just Christianity.
We will start out with the ACLU’s official policy on the tax exemption of Churches. Policy #92, “Religious Bodies’ Tax Exemption”…it states, “The ACLU opposes the tax-exemption of all churches…”Source
During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, “I’m a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU’s position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis’s association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.
During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, “I don’t think they’re right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church.”
The ACLU don’t deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush’s statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source
Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.
“ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU’s desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was “very foolish.” But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing “tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.’ In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: “The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies”, seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption.”Source
“In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches, it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion.”Source
Meanwhile with the Witches
“While the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Satanists.”Source They went and got a tax administator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had. This is pure hypocrisy. The ACLU’s involvement in this case clearly shows that they will defend the rights of the occult. Many Christians wonder why they are not as acommodating to our interests.”
Now if we were to follow some misguided philosphy of the seperation of church and state, one might could rationalize their policy on a church’s tax exempt status. One could also rationalize a posistion of tax exemption to all religions. But their is no logical reasoning that one could take to defend both of these positions. It is pure hypocrisy, and proof that the ACLU is an enemy of Christianity.
I question their tax exempt-status! I think it’s time for Christians on the left and right to wake up to the ACLU’s agenda!
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER’S DOLE
We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Or Perhaps
|
|
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join us, register at the Protest The ACLU Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and emailed further instructions.
Sites already on board are listed in the right sidebar.
Welcome Barking Moonbat Readers Please leave me some comments.
Indepundit has an open post! Thanks Mudville Gazette
My Pet Jawa is having a fatwah festival!
Indepundit has an open post!
Wizbang has the carnival of trackbacks.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
24 Responses to “ACLU Opposes Tax Exemptions For All Churches”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
In other words, the ACLU doesn’t believe in ‘Separation of Church and State’ the ACLU believes in ‘Separation of Church FROM State’
If the ACLU had it’s way we would all be swearing on the Constitution. (The ACLU endorsed version of the Constitution, that is…)
Great post, Jay. I wonder if the ACLU will start saying that not allowing sacrifices for certain religions violates civil rights?
What? The ACLU is hypocritical? I’m shocked! Great post Jay.
The ACLU wanted tax exempt status ONLY for wiccans but not for other religious organizations? That’s just bizarre.
In the past the ACLU has asked for government to afford equal treatment for all speech. That is, either give tax-exempt status to all non-profit policy advocates, or none.
(Now, I’ve always been a little skeptical about tax exemptions anyway. Why should Gold’s Gym pay taxes but not the YMCA? Why should for-profit health care systems pay taxes, but not-for-profit ones get a free ride? Don’t they all benefit equally from our national defense, our roads, our courts, our currency, our police?
And why should donations to these organizations be tax-deductible? The government gives a bigger subsidy to Bill Gates for giving to his church than the government gives to me for giving to mine, simply because Bill Gates is in a higher tax bracket. What sense does that make? I mean, I’ve got nothing against Gates giving money to his church, but why does he need an added bonus to do it? Especially now, when we’re at war and running large deficits, these seem like bad policies to me. I think we should get the tax code out of the equation entirely. But that’s just me.)
That said - IF we’re gonna give tax breaks to some people, we should give them on an even-handed basis. IF we give tax breaks to the Catholics, then we need to give those same tax breaks to other religions as well. Conversely, we could withhold tax breaks from everyone equally. But whichever policy we choose, we should apply it even-handedly.
And if we withhold tax-exempt status from organizations simply because they lobby, then we should withhold it from ALL organizations that lobby. Conversely, we could repeal the prohibition on granting tax-exempt status to organizations that lobby. Again, either policy would be fair; we need to pick one and apply it equally.
That’s why I’m astonished that the ACLU would advocate discriminating in favor of one religion and against another. That’s a real scoop. Please provide more info on that.
Well what do you know? I agree with you Nobody. I don’t advocate politics from the pulpit, but it should be an even handed and fair thing all around. All religions should be exempt, or none. This is where the biased hatred for Christianity from the ACLU comes in.
The new design really does look good. The color scheme is nice choice and pleasing to the eyes. Nice job.
“Politics” and the pulpit cannot be separated, as your post points out…the Catholic Church was attacked by the ACLU because of its position on abortion, which the ACLU considers a political issue, while I consider it a religious issue…who decides?
I preached a message called “It Doesn’t Take a Village” in which I happened to take Hillary Clinton’s views to task…To me, it was not political, it was about a certain worldview and my opposition to it…The government expects prayer and the Ten Commandments to be kept out of their buildings, they can darn well stay out of God’s building.
Amen Mak! And nice to see you. What I mean by politics from the pulpit would be actual endorsement of a candidate. You are correct that “politics” can’t be seperated. Many political issues are also moral issues. A church should be able to encourage people to vote based on their morals, and the teachings of the Church.
At the risk of ruining the start of a beautiful relationship, I respectfully disagree with Jay’s opposition to politics from the pulpit. I think Makrothumeo has the better stand here. Political issues are often moral issues as well, and we should all - religious leaders as well as anyone else - speak out.
Of course, the idea that government would change someone’s tax status - in effect, impose a fine - EXPLICITLY based on the content of his speech just seems wrong, wrong, wrong. And incidentally, it would seem to violate the 1st Amendment.
But what to do about it? Making everyone subject to the same tax code, regardless of their speech, would solve the problem. Of course, everyone who currently gets tax-exempt status would hate this, including many wonderful organizations, religious and otherwise. But the alternative would be to greatly expand tax exemptions for lobbyists. That hardly seems right, either.
I never doubted Jay’s support for even-handedness, but I appreciate him saying it.
Whoops, Jay beat me to it.
Never mind….
Finally, kudos for Jay. It takes a strong person to speak up even when you know that nobody.really agrees with you.
I had to read that a couple of times before I realized you were referring to yourself “nobody.really”.
As always, great pot gang.
I’m up, I did mine on “Religious Liberty” as well.
RR
I agree with you Jay, and you know what I do? I NEVER mention a candidate from the pulpit…I say, “You all know what we believe…we believe babies are babies, not just discardable tissue; we believe marriage is between a man and a woman; we believe that Christ is Lord, not the Supreme Court or the Congress–now go out there on election day and vote your beliefs.” No need to mention a candidate. Everybody knows what to do.
It seems they are also fine with personal beliefs on license plates, like the one in the news that says its owner is gay. But would they be just as fine with a Christian plate?
Great post. We need to get rid of this hypocritical organization.
What part of the following argument is hypocritical?: No religious organization should be tax exempt, but as long as they are, no specific religion is more entitled to tax-exempt status than any other?
You don’t give enough details about the Providence case to determine whether this is the argument made by the ACLU in this instance.
You really don’t understand the ACLU’s position on religious liberty if you think they’re opposed to religion or Chrisitianity. Maybe this page will clear up some of the confusion.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17598&c=38
Very nice blog.
I think you all fail to realize the point. The ACLU has been fighting inequality in the tax-exempt status rules.
As long as the government grants tax-exempt status to some religions and not others, the ACLU will defend the right of the others for equal treatment.
The fair solution is, obviously, to grant tax-exempt status to all or to none.
Your “ACLU HATES CHRISTIANITY” rants only serve to make your arguments look all the more ridiculous. The ACLU has defended the rights of Christians as often or MORE often than they have of other churches. Unlike you, the ACLU does NOT discriminate against who they fight for — all that’s necessary for the ACLU to defend you is for you to be denied your constitutional rights.
Outdoor Cooking
Permanent Make Up
You cannot have it both ways, and the ACLU is merely showing this by saying “OK, if ‘churches’ get tax exempt status, then ALL activities done under the guise of spiritual belief deserve the same, including pagans, and wiccans” In truth NONE of these ‘religious’ groups should impose tax liabilities on non believers. As an atheist myself, why should I have to pay taxes for fire protection for a multi-million dollar cathedral, or provide police Sunday or Saturday pay to direct traffic in and out of this facility? I should not, that is why. It is supporting the establishment of a church…period. If the believers truly believe, that is their right. it is also their right to pay for what they get from society. So if a cult of Mormons, or a coven of Catholics moves in to a town, you should not burden the non-believers, (those who can live without an imaginary friend/savior) with the civic support services, like sidewalk maintenance, snow removal from public streets, fire protection, and LOSS of taxable property often in the nicer parts of town. Walmart pays taxes. A cathedral taking up 20 acres should too.
Thank you for reading, and I support your right to oppose my ideas, please allow me the same courtesy.
A lot to agree with….
Yes, if one religion is not tax-exempt, none should be. And none should be.
But….
If one religion is tax-exempt - and way too many are - then they all should be.
So why not wicca? They probably don’t even run bingo in the basement.
Not a lawyer but seems to me one argues a single case focused on its merits.
One does not stifle the case one is assigned to because another part of the
organization is working in a somewhat different direction. As if all US law
was consistent. What a crock.
The ACLU is not helpful in a lot of areas. This is one of them.