Hello, all, second post, and this time it's about the controversial RELIGION chapter from our book Nonprofit Nation! This always seems to bring a fire to any individual's eyes (as we saw in class), whether for or against the idea that churches and religiously affiliated organizations should be allowed to keep their revenues a secret, and whether or not they should have to answer to the government regarding what they use their revenue for. I felt very passionately about this chapter and the discussion that ensued in class.
After reading Chapter 3 of Nonprofit Nation, I am inclined to agree that churches should be able to withhold their revenue made from donations from patrons and still have tax-exempt, nonprofit status. It has often been said that this is unfair, but I disagree, because churches have the natural governing body of their members. Unlike the US government, which has power over the states, which in turn have power over localities, churches derive their power from the people, and as such, they are under the influence of the people. Most church members, upon finding out that their donations have been used for what they see as illegitimate means, leave the church or take it a step further and take them to court.
As I see it, churches are held accountable for how they use their money by the people, and when a church uses their money for unusual purposes (such as the Westboro Baptist Church does, making signs and flying members to protest events), we can see they they are but a minute piece of the pie of what churches have the power to do as a whole. Because the WBC is so radical, we can see that they have far fewer members than most churches, and I imagine that their borderline insane purposes/funding of those purposes will die out once the leading members have passed on.
If the government were to have the power to regulate churches and religious organizations on their tax-exemption status, this would be thinning the line between the separation of church and state, and it would be breaking the founding fathers' guidelines of a secular government.
Erin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. Well I agree with you that churches are governed by and held accountable to the people of their fellowship. The same is true for other nonprofits. Most are required to have a Board of Directors which oversee spending and services. Essentially, the nonprofits are being governed by their peers as well.
I believe churches should be required to submit financial reports and be as transparent as all others that share the same nonprofit status.
Erin,
ReplyDeleteI also agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to report to the government everything they do. The separation of church and state works both ways. Government staying out of religions and religions staying out of government. I do like that, I believe it was said in class, half of established religions report their charitable donations, works etc anyway. I'd like it if religions were more open about what they are doing though.
Erin,
ReplyDeleteThe separation of church and state is a tricky subject. Though that's one of the main ideas that America was built upon, and I do believe that most people want to uphold this ideal, the evolution of our country's political processes and social networking blurs a lot of lines. What comes to mind as I'm typing this is the lobbying and fundraising done by many churches (particularly Mormon churches) concerning Prop 8 legislation. Actions such as these make me more inclined to want churches to file the same financial reports that nonprofits are required to.
Erin, I respect you for your loyalty to the niners. I think that the NFL could really help out some communities by making each team its own nonprofit organization. Both jobs and revenue would skyrocket within the communities that support these teams, and I'm sure other leagues would follow suit. This would probably increase sales as well; it seems likely that people would be more willing to spend money on a ticket or memorabilia if they knew that money would go into their communities, rather than the pocket of some business man.
ReplyDelete