This should come as no surprise: For the past three years, the Internal Revenue Service
hasn't been investigating complaints of partisan political activity by
churches, leaving religious groups who make direct or thinly veiled
endorsements of political candidates unchallenged.
The IRS
monitors religious and other nonprofits on everything from salaries to
spending, and that oversight continues. However, Russell Renwicks, a
manager in the IRS Mid-Atlantic region, recently said the agency had
suspended audits of churches suspected of breaching federal restrictions
on political activity. A 2009 federal court ruling required the IRS to
clarify which high-ranking official could authorize audits over the tax code's political rules. The IRS has yet to do so.
Dean
Patterson, an IRS spokesman in Washington, said Renwicks, who examines
large tax-exempt groups, "misspoke." Patterson would not provide any
specifics beyond saying that "the IRS continues to run a balanced
program that follows up on potential noncompliance."
However, attorneys who specialize in tax law for religious groups, as
well as advocacy groups who monitor the cases, say they know of no IRS
inquiries in the past three years into claims of partisanship by houses
of worship. IRS church audits are confidential, but usually become
public as the targeted religious groups fight to maintain their
nonprofit status.
However, attorneys who specialize in tax law for religious groups, as
well as advocacy groups who monitor the cases, say they know of no IRS
inquiries in the past three years into claims of partisanship by houses
of worship. IRS church audits are confidential, but usually become
public as the targeted religious groups fight to maintain their
nonprofit status.
"The impression created is that no one is
minding the store," said Melissa Rogers, a legal scholar and director of
the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University
Divinity School in North Carolina. "When there's an impression the IRS is not enforcing the restriction - that seems to embolden some to cross the line."
The
issue is closely watched by a cadre of attorneys and former IRS
officials who specialize in tax-exempt law, along with watchdog groups
on competing sides of the church-state debate. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/03/4959147/irs-not-enforcing-rules-on-churches.html
This should come as no surprise as the Obama administration cherry picks the laws they want to follow and which ones they don't.
So, why aren't atheists angry at this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, as your friendly neighborhood atheist, let me say that 1) I am greatly irritated by blatant violations of church/state separation; 2) I think churches that participate in electoral politics should lose their tax exempt status; 3) I think that "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency; 4) Wish we could get past every politician saying "God bless America".
ReplyDeleteBut I'm also a realist. I think we'll get there on the first two, eventually. I think the motto is here to stay on the money, because most people (myself included) I don't think it's worth the effort or potential backlash to do anything about it, the same with #4. Because I recognize the reality of the fervency of evangelicals and other religious people. That's why I don't get pissy with Obama for recognizing this political reality.
This may be a surprise to you, Jamie, I am in agreement with you on most of what you say.
ReplyDeletePoints 1 and 2, I am in total agreement with you and the last point is also irritating to me- mainly because most presidents really don't mean it and it is pandering.
As far as the money- as far as I am concerned, it's tradition and recognizes our history.
Actually, the motto has been on coins for a long time, added during the Civil War, under pressure from churches who wanted it to be clear that God was on the side of the Union, not the Confederacy. It was added to the paper money in the 50s during McCarthyism, a bone thrown to show we weren't communists.
ReplyDelete"Under God" was similarly added in the 50s to the Pledge of Allegiance for the same reason. The funny part of the last one is that the Pledge originated as an advertising slogan to sell flags. When you think about it, a pledge of allegiance in a free country being indoctrinated into children should have FREAKED conservatives out! How communist is that? :)
The courts have twisted themselves into knots trying to say that "God" in these things is more tradition than religious endorsement. They're wrong. Any clear reading of it would conclude that God doesn't belong there. BUT, they knew it would FREAK people out! And in this instance, I agree. It isn't worth the effort in our current climate to mess with it.