This past week, during class and from the book Nonprofit nation, we learned the basics surrounding religious organizations. Foremost, religious organizations are the largest part of the non-profit sector; there are 375,000 registered organizations in the United States (O'Neill 53). Religion influences many lives, forty percent of the American populace attend religious services weekly, and religious organizations are considered the most trusted institution in the United States (O'Neill 62). Survey results show that American's trust religious organizations more than the government, unions, and the media (O'Neill 62). While the statistics do not surprise me, I feel that since religious organizations shape the society which we live in, greater regulation should exist as it has taken on non-traditional roles such as hospitals, education, and social services. A hospital could refuse to give a patient emergency contraception, a school could expel a homosexual student, and a social service organization such as a homeless shelter could impose mandatory religious services. As religious organizations crowd out other institutions, and given the non-profit status, would the government exceed its powers if it were to regulate?
Religious Organizations are entrenched in the traditions and culture which have influenced and shaped today's society both negatively and positively. For example, the temperance movement of the 19th and 20th century's, extensive attention to urban poor during the progressive era, and today taking stances on faith based issues (O'Neill 62-63). It seems that religious belief plays a role in voting today, making it difficult to make policy on controversial issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research. Religious organizations do advocate a particular ideology and this has influenced decision making in the political arena, it is questionable the tax exempt status in its current form, and the lack of regulation such as with financial information. The question becomes even more difficult when religious and political messages become blurred together.
In class, the distinction was made between advocating on issues versus a candidate which would qualify as campaign intervention. A religious organization can advocate on the right to life but only crosses the line when it takes a direct political stance. An absolute must read for this class is a tax guide for churches and religious organizations available from the IRS. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf It states a distinction between issue "advocacy" and "campaign intervention" (IRS 9). It pointed out that referencing a candidate by name, stating approval and disapproval for actions, and referencing voting would make the speech political in nature (IRS 9). There are a number of loop holes surrounding advocacy, for example, a religious organization could post a link on their website. Further, GOTV efforts are allowed by 501(c)3 organizations, this making bias an issue. Importantly, it is noted that 501(c)3 organizations are not all together barred from political activity, but if they choose to engage in campaign intervention they may do so at the penalty of a 10% excise tax. Further, political activity such as lobbying cannot serve as the a 501(c)3 organizations primary function for more than four years, it would subject it's entire income during that period to tax. Furthermore, a major aspect surrounding religion that concerns me is the lack of financial accountability surrounding religious organizations; they are not required to file reports with the IRS and other governmental agencies.
According to Nonprofit Nation, 85-90% of revenue comes from donations, and this amounting to $85 million dollars in 2000 alone (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1993). The remaining 10-15% comes from grants, endowment income, net profit from auxiliary services, and with facilities rental (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1993). The book notes a trend towards secularism. It will be interesting to see the role religious organizations play in the future, perhaps a greater allocation of resources will go to social functions, such as health, social services, and international aide. Given the amount of assets held by churches, and the tax exempt status, it seems that religious organizations will have a lasting influence on society.
Reflecting on the additional reading, it was noted that when reducing the estate tax, it hurts charitable donations. If the tax rates were higher then many would choose to donate to tax exempt charities to see that their money went farther. Given that many of those in Congress come from privileged backgrounds, and that they are an extremely wealthy group, it seems unlikely that lawmakers will look favorably at raising tax rates on the estate tax. Next, given the recession, it seems habits have changed surrounding charitable donations. Donations are directly linked to the performance of the stock market, and when there is less money, many simply can't afford to donate. Lastly, it should be noted that is unlikely that cutting tax exempt status would contribute to significantly lessening the national debt, this as charities and government often serve duel purposes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is important that we not turn into a theocracy, as long as we are human, removing any kind of faith from our government would require us to obliterate faith in general. That's probably not going to happen any time soon. Also, religion has been interwoven into almost every aspect of government, including social services. Think of South American Jesuit economies, Roman festivals, the five pillars of Islam, the beginnings of American nonprofits! Hospitals evolved from religious communities that treated the sick and taught people how to read. I think it's interesting in where the lines are crossed between preaching for a particular type of person and advocating for a candidate. In turn, it's good that we have critics of religion (like blogs) and our tax system so we stay in check.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the presence of the church, standing at 90% of American citizens involved, is far too great of a definition of American culture for our government structure to simply turn a blind eye to it in the act of simplicity. If the American government is to be a mirror and a facilitator of the modern American citizen how can it work functionally so disconnected from such a basic aspect of the American citizen? This is already seen in the need for the Supreme Court to play a babysitting role between the two dynamics of American existence.
ReplyDeleteThe trust people have in religious organizations appears to be directly related to the success of churches as nonprofits. People are not going to donate their money to a person or an organization that they do not trust, so it makes sense that if people have confidence in religious organizations, they feel secure that their donations will be used honestly. While this association makes sense, it is also a little strange considering that churches and religious organizations are the least government regulated areas of the nonprofit sector. Your choice of the word "blurred" to describe the relationship between church and state is a perfect one. There are so many ways in which religion is directly related to politics, yet it is taboo to admit that such is the case. For example, every Presidential candidate claims religious affiliation, and that affiliation is discussed openly in relation to their political beliefs and policies. To me, that does not at all convey that church and state are separate. So, where is the line drawn and who decides when and where it is okay to cross it?
ReplyDeleteYour debate about religious
ReplyDelete"advocacy" is interesting because I would generally feel it delineates a function of speech. It seems that the courts have taken a strong stance since the Brandenburg v. Ohio case that advocacy remains outside of the realm of something that the courts can facilitate. To start regulating it now might open the door to ambigiuity and would have to defy tremendous stare decisis jurisprudence. However, I do agree with you that churches should have more financial accountability, it seems that since they do tred the waters of political advocacy they should reciprocate financial accountability. Religious institutions can often have their cake and eat it too in terms of political reciprocity.
I like how you remarked that cutting the tax-exempt status would not likely trim the national debt too much because of the function that non-profit charities have in doing services government would normally do. I think that many people missed this point.
I think there is some regulations that the government could impose without violating the separation of church and state law. The government would some what exceed its power if it were to regulate a religious organization because there are lots of grey areas on where it can regulate. An interesting idea would be to have a nonprofit organization specifically regulate religious organizations.I agree that there are loopholes in political advocacy and I am sure some religious organization do this. I, too feel that religious organization will have a lasting influence in society and in providing more social services to the community.
ReplyDelete