Tax Exemption Abuse

[Glitch]

Why do churches and charities need tax exemptions?

Presumably as an incentive to continue those charitable works. Like giving first-time home buyers a tax exemption, as an incentive to buy a home.

 

[mrjurrs]

So you want to abolish all tax exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations? Or are you just discriminating against religious institutions in particular? Because the former can be done. It wouldn't be popular, but it would certainly not violate the US Constitution. The second one, however, would be a violation of the US Constitution and not permitted.

It seems rather extreme to me to abolish all tax exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations just because you want to tax churches. Although it would fit the irrational abject hatred the left repeatedly demonstrates toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

We disagree. I think providing financial benefit to an international pedophilia ring is wrong.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Presumably as an incentive to continue those charitable works. Like giving first-time home buyers a tax exemption, as an incentive to buy a home.

A good person does not need encouragement to do good things. Why form a charity or a church if you need a financial incentive to do the right thing?

 

[NotreDame]

The last time the rules changed for a 501(c)3 was in May of 2020.

So what? Presently the rules are what they are, and they do not cover the conduct in the video. It doesn’t matter whether rules are immutable or not. What matters is at this moment, the rules do not forbid what occurred in the video.

What other US govt tax law provides financial benefit to an organization that has organizational pedophilia issues?

I couldn’t care less about your illogical use of pejorative phrases. Your question and its phrasing has nothing to do substantively with what I’ve said.

You have a world view and narrative to adhere to, facts and logical reasoning be damned. I operate differently, what are the premises of my argument and others, what are the hidden assumptions of the argument, inferences, and are the premises, assumptions, and conclusion true. Your argument has assumptions, premises, and conclusions which are factually false, or otherwise irrational based on the subject matter.

 

[NotreDame]

I'm not disputing that churches tax exemptions are legal, I'm arguing they shouldn't get them.

Ah the “shouldn’t” argument. And what ethics or morality is invoked upon which the tax code “should not” provide tax benefits to churches?

By the way, that's the second most important that should be asked.

“Should be…should be…should be…” So what? There’s no shortage of people with an opinion of what “should be.” Some have the opinion life “should be” that you aren’t to have the freedom to express the particular POV you have in this thread. Christians have a “should be” mentality, there shouldn’t be gay marriage, along with atheists, Marxists, capitalists, moralists, etcetera.

There’s no reason or fact as to why your “should be” notions of reality “are to be” adhered to over anyone else’s “should be” notions of how life is to be structured.

The first...How are the members of his congregation living? What's the saying? It's easier for a camel to get through a needles eye than a rich man to get into heaven?[

Unfortunate you’ve misunderstood the phrase. First, given context, your comments tacitly says there’s some Biblical pronouncement against a pastor being better off than his congregation and the verse regarding rich people and the “eye of the needle” is it. But this tacit statment isn’t to be found in the Bible or the verse about rich people and the “eye of the needle.”

“And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do so that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not give false testimony; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be [k]complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

“ 17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do so that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But he was deeply dismayed by [j]these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus responded again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “[k]Then who can be saved?”

The quality of being wealthy, rich, prosperous, was not what prompted Jesus. Jesus’ response was to the man’s despondency of having to sell his possessions to follow Jesus. The man desired his possessions more than he desired to follow Jesus, and that is what Jesus is addressing. Underlying his comment about rich folk is the principle that applies to all people, Jesus is to be first, above all else.

Jesus didn’t say rich people could not enter heaven and neither did he say rich people cannot desire and love him more than their possessions. Jesus commented about difficulty, not impossibility, when he said the word “hard.”

So, your best effort to impugn Joel Olsteen is empty at this point.

 

[Glitch]

We disagree. I think providing financial benefit to an international pedophilia ring is wrong.

As I suspected, for you this is about religious bigotry. A means of attacking someone's religion. Which is why the First Amendment exists.

 

[Glitch]

A good person does not need encouragement to do good things. Why form a charity or a church if you need a financial incentive to do the right thing?

I agree, and most people do good things without encouragement. What the government is saying with their tax exemption, is that we're not going to impose a tax on those good things.

With regard to religion specifically, a tax would also give the appearance that government was antagonistic towards religion, or discriminatory if they are allowing all other forms of charitable contributions to be tax exempt, except for religious charitable organizations.

While not taxing religion may seem to be exactly the opposite, that government is favoring religion, but it really isn't when one factors in all the other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations who receive the exact same status.

I'm an atheist, so I have no "skin in the game" as it were. However, considering the out-right hostility the left openly demonstrates towards religion, I think it is much safer to keep religion tax exempt and out of the hands of those who want to destroy religion utterly through taxation.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I agree, and most people do good things without encouragement. What the government is saying with their tax exemption, is that we're not going to impose a tax on those good things.

With regard to religion specifically, a tax would also give the appearance that government was antagonistic towards religion, or discriminatory if they are allowing all other forms of charitable contributions to be tax exempt, except for religious charitable organizations.

While not taxing religion may seem to be exactly the opposite, that government is favoring religion, but it really isn't when one factors in all the other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations who receive the exact same status.

I'm an atheist, so I have no "skin in the game" as it were. However, considering the out-right hostility the left openly demonstrates towards religion, I think it is much safer to keep religion tax exempt and out of the hands of those who want to destroy religion utterly through taxation.

You are assuming that I assert that charities should be exempt; I am not.

As far as what the left is doing it's irrelevant. The continuous tribalism in politics these days is pathetic. And never a good reason to make decisions on.

The wealthy exploit charities to save themselves money on taxes. They do not really care about who their accountant chose to give money to, to get out of paying taxes. Bribing Americans to do the right thing is not a sustainable method. All that it does is erode society.

 

[mrjurrs]

So what? Presently the rules are what they are, and they do not cover the conduct in the video. It doesn’t matter whether rules are immutable or not. What matters is at this moment, the rules do not forbid what occurred in the video.



I couldn’t care less about your illogical use of pejorative phrases. Your question and its phrasing has nothing to do substantively with what I’ve said.

You have a world view and narrative to adhere to, facts and logical reasoning be damned. I operate differently, what are the premises of my argument and others, what are the hidden assumptions of the argument, inferences, and are the premises, assumptions, and conclusion true. Your argument has assumptions, premises, and conclusions which are factually false, or otherwise irrational based on the subject matter.

Popes knew about transferring priests that engaged in pedophilia. International pedophilia ring. You may not like the words, but they are accurate.

 

[mrjurrs]

Ah the “shouldn’t” argument. And what ethics or morality is invoked upon which the tax code “should not” provide tax benefits to churches?



“Should be…should be…should be…” So what? There’s no shortage of people with an opinion of what “should be.” Some have the opinion life “should be” that you aren’t to have the freedom to express the particular POV you have in this thread. Christians have a “should be” mentality, there shouldn’t be gay marriage, along with atheists, Marxists, capitalists, moralists, etcetera.

There’s no reason or fact as to why your “should be” notions of reality “are to be” adhered to over anyone else’s “should be” notions of how life is to be structured.



Unfortunate you’ve misunderstood the phrase. First, given context, your comments tacitly says there’s some Biblical pronouncement against a pastor being better off than his congregation and the verse regarding rich people and the “eye of the needle” is it. But this tacit statment isn’t to be found in the Bible or the verse about rich people and the “eye of the needle.”

“And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do so that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not give false testimony; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be [k]complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

“ 17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do so that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But he was deeply dismayed by [j]these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus responded again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “[k]Then who can be saved?”

The quality of being wealthy, rich, prosperous, was not what prompted Jesus. Jesus’ response was to the man’s despondency of having to sell his possessions to follow Jesus. The man desired his possessions more than he desired to follow Jesus, and that is what Jesus is addressing. Underlying his comment about rich folk is the principle that applies to all people, Jesus is to be first, above all else.

Jesus didn’t say rich people could not enter heaven and neither did he say rich people cannot desire and love him more than their possessions. Jesus commented about difficulty, not impossibility, when he said the word “hard.”

So, your best effort to impugn Joel Olsteen is empty at this point.

Keep sending your donations. You have no better chance at heaven or hell than I do.

 

[mrjurrs]

As I suspected, for you this is about religious bigotry. A means of attacking someone's religion. Which is why the First Amendment exists.

I'd say that denying religious crime is far closer to bigotry than what I said. Did Popes know about transferring pedophile priests? Yes. International pedophilia ring.

 

[NotreDame]

Popes knew about transferring priests that engaged in pedophilia. International pedophilia ring. You may not like the words, but they are accurate.

First, the phrase “international pedophilia ring” is misleading based on your comment of what transpired.

Next, if true, that doesn’t justify revoking tax exempt status for all Catholics churches.

Finally, to my knowledge, tax exempt status is conditioned in such a manner. Perhaps such a line is prudent, loss of tax exempt status is to punish the branches of the organization for the sins of some members.

 

[NotreDame]

Keep sending your donations. You have no better chance at heaven or hell than I do.

Maybe, but I have a demonstrable “better chance” at making a sound argument.

 

[mrjurrs]

First, the phrase “international pedophilia ring” is misleading based on your comment of what transpired.

Next, if true, that doesn’t justify revoking tax exempt status for all Catholics churches.

Finally, to my knowledge, tax exempt status is conditioned in such a manner. Perhaps such a line is prudent, loss of tax exempt status is to punish the branches of the organization for the sins of some members.

The 'CEO' of the organization knew and has fallen way short in his response. All tax status is subject to new tax codes, period.

 

[mrjurrs]

Maybe, but I have a demonstrable “better chance” at making a sound argument.

Re your signature? The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.

 

[Glitch]

I'd say that denying religious crime is far closer to bigotry than what I said. Did Popes know about transferring pedophile priests? Yes. International pedophilia ring.

Your irrational hatred and desire to attack other people's religious beliefs is the perfect demonstration why the First Amendment is required.

Thanks for upholding the stereotype about progressives and their vehement hatred of other people's beliefs. People wouldn't believe me, thinking I just made it up, without your posts to back me up. So thanks for that.

 

[AmNat]

Your irrational hatred and desire to attack other people's religious beliefs is the perfect demonstration why the First Amendment is required.

Thanks for upholding the stereotype about progressives and their vehement hatred of other people's beliefs. People wouldn't believe me, thinking I just made it up, without your posts to back me up. So thanks for that.

They are some of the most hateful people in existence. Every time certain leftists speak one can sense the hatred that consumes them.

 

[Glitch]

They are some of the most hateful people in existence. Every time certain leftists speak one can sense the hatred that consumes them.

I'm not even religious. I'm an atheist, and could not care less about what other people believe or don't believe. What other's believe "neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket," in the words of Thomas Jefferson.

However, it is very apparent to anyone who bothers to look, and as posters in this thread have demonstrated, the left have declared a full-out war against Christians and Christianity in general.

I would be the first one to jump on the bandwagon to prevent government from establishing a religion - any religion. However, I am not so fanatical and consumed with hatred as to construe that a high school valedictorian speech can somehow magically establish a government religion. That requires a very special kind of idiot.

 

[skeptic llc]

So you want to abolish all tax exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations? Or are you just discriminating against religious institutions in particular? Because the former can be done. It wouldn't be popular, but it would certainly not violate the US Constitution. The second one, however, would be a violation of the US Constitution and not permitted.

It seems rather extreme to me to abolish all tax exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations just because you want to tax churches. Although it would fit the irrational abject hatred the left repeatedly demonstrates toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

FWIW, I'm all for the former. As soon as we create exemptions, everybody and their brother just invents convoluted ways to abuse it. **** it, let charity be freely given instead of subsidized by the IRS. And no, this isn't just a device to get at churches -- most "charity" (religious institutions included) is at war with other "charity" so that we are just subsidizing ideological combatants fighting one another. We subsidize liberal think tanks, and also conservative think tanks (directly at odds), for example. So dumb. Just tax all of it and stop pretending that when the "charity" label attaches it is somehow working to make the world better instead of merely working to outfight competing ideological ("charitable") visions.

 

[mrjurrs]

Your irrational hatred and desire to attack other people's religious beliefs is the perfect demonstration why the First Amendment is required.

Thanks for upholding the stereotype about progressives and their vehement hatred of other people's beliefs. People wouldn't believe me, thinking I just made it up, without your posts to back me up. So thanks for that.

Any facts I've stated that you care to dispute? If not, then we just have a difference of opinion on how serious the crime is. Imo, these 'spiritual mentors' made a horrific crime worse. Actions that aided and abetted it are unforgivable.

 

[Glitch]

FWIW, I'm all for the former. As soon as we create exemptions, everybody and their brother just invents convoluted ways to abuse it. **** it, let charity be freely given instead of subsidized by the IRS. And no, this isn't just a device to get at churches -- most "charity" (religious institutions included) is at war with other "charity" so that we are just subsidizing ideological combatants fighting one another. We subsidize liberal think tanks, and also conservative think tanks (directly at odds), for example. So dumb. Just tax all of it and stop pretending that when the "charity" label attaches it is somehow working to make the world better instead of merely working to outfight competing ideological ("charitable") visions.

First, a tax exemption is not a government subsidy. Second, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in 1819, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

As we have already seen in this thread, the left are literally frothing at the mouth when it concerns a belief that isn't theirs. It is intolerable to them, and they will go out of their way to destroy such beliefs. Including intentionally taxing them out of existence.

If we do not impose taxes on non-profit charitable organizations, then they can't be destroyed, at least not through taxation. The left is obsessed with taxing churches specifically for the purpose of destroying them.

 

[skeptic llc]

First, a tax exemption is not a government subsidy. Second, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in 1819, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

As we have already seen in this thread, the left are literally frothing at the mouth when it concerns a belief that isn't theirs. It is intolerable to them, and they will go out of their way to destroy such beliefs. Including intentionally taxing them out of existence.

If we do not impose taxes on non-profit charitable organizations, then they can't be destroyed, at least not through taxation. The left is obsessed with taxing churches specifically for the purpose of destroying them.

Giving government services (roads, police, etc.) to an entity that does not pay for it does actually seem like a subsidy. They are not paying, they are just "getting".

The left and right are both frothing at the mouth about whatever, that's what extremists do. They don't tolerate views that aren't theirs, and try to destroy them.

The left may instead be obsessed with taxing churches that just can't stay the **** out of politics, so that viewing them as non-partisan charitable causes is too blatant a fiction to ignore. Maybe Pastor Monkeydoodle should shut the F up about politics and try to help humanity, instead of just trying to promote his preferred politics?

 

[Glitch]

Giving government services (roads, police, etc.) to an entity that does not pay for it does actually seem like a subsidy. They are not paying, they are just "getting".

There are people in Alaska that pay no property taxes, no sales taxes, no State or local taxes of any kind. Of course they also have no government services of any kind either. Although, they still have access to the roads, and they are entitled to it since they pay both the federal and State gasoline taxes when they fill up their vehicles. All the services that government normally provides, like education, fire protection, etc. (except law enforcement) are handled by private companies instead. The Alaska State Troopers also provides protection for the entire State, not just the taxed areas of Alaska.

Contrary to popular belief, people can live just fine without government holding their hand.

The left and right are both frothing at the mouth about whatever, that's what extremists do. They don't tolerate views that aren't theirs, and try to destroy them.

Incorrect. That abnormal behavior is indicative entirely to the left, and the left alone. It is part of their psychosis.

I am not religious in the least, and I'm certainly no Christian. I also have no desire to either prevent anyone from believing whatever they please. Nor do I have any desire to force my own beliefs, or the lack thereof, on others. Only leftists are that mentally deranged.

The left may instead be obsessed with taxing churches that just can't stay the **** out of politics, so that viewing them as non-partisan charitable causes is too blatant a fiction to ignore. Maybe Pastor Monkeydoodle should shut the F up about politics and try to help humanity, instead of just trying to promote his preferred politics?

Again you are mistaken. Leftist filth have absolutely no problem with religious beliefs that condemn the US, like Obama's anti-American religion. You will also note that nobody on the right ever tried to shut up or destroy Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Obama's hate-monger. Once again proving your assertion wrong. That is precisely the kind of religious belief the left actually supports - abject hatred for the US. Everyone else who does not vehemently hate the nation as much as the leftist freaks is their mortal enemy, who they will do anything to stamp out, as we have already seen.

 

[skeptic llc]

There are people in Alaska that pay no property taxes, no sales taxes, no State or local taxes of any kind. Of course they also have no government services of any kind either. Although, they still have access to the roads, and they are entitled to it since they pay both the federal and State gasoline taxes when they fill up their vehicles. All the services that government normally provides, like education, fire protection, etc. (except law enforcement) are handled by private companies instead. The Alaska State Troopers also provides protection for the entire State, not just the taxed areas of Alaska.

Contrary to popular belief, people can live just fine without government holding their hand.

Doesn't the government literally pay people to live in Alaska? Seems like a very odd state to use as an example of much of anything,

Incorrect. That abnormal behavior is indicative entirely to the left, and the left alone. It is part of their psychosis.

Oh my. Since you presumably have access to media, and are presumably intelligent, I can't help but think you are posturing. The right's intolerance of alternate views and attempts to silence them are so obvious that I hesitate to give counter-examples to your position. Do you seriously think this or are you just ****ing with me?

I am not religious in the least, and I'm certainly no Christian. I also have no desire to either prevent anyone from believing whatever they please. Nor do I have any desire to force my own beliefs, or the lack thereof, on others. Only leftists are that mentally deranged.

Same response. Are you kidding? Is this a parody? Or have you actually not heard of any right wing or Christian attempts to tell others what they must believe? Gaslighting not appreciated, is this for real?

Again you are mistaken. Leftist filth have absolutely no problem with religious beliefs that condemn the US, like Obama's anti-American religion. You will also note that nobody on the right ever tried to shut up or destroy Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Obama's hate-monger. Once again proving your assertion wrong. That is precisely the kind of religious belief the left actually supports - abject hatred for the US. Everyone else who does not vehemently hate the nation as much as the leftist freaks is their mortal enemy, who they will do anything to stamp out, as we have already seen.

Some on the left (far too many, in my view) match your characterization. Not all, and I don't think it's even most (though I would entertain the possibility that it's most, that's not an absurd position -- much there would depend on underlying definitions of things like "leftists"). But the left clearly has a blind spot when it comes to hating America, holding it to a different standard, attacking it for everything while being apologists for other nations and cultures, shoving its academic head up its *** to try to avoid conclusions it does not like, and so forth.

However, as much as that topic is also interesting, I am pointing to the fact that many right wing churches and pastors blatantly disregard and deliberately violate rules of non-partisanship while still expecting to be treated as non-profit entities engaged in charity. Do you deny this, or just want to change the topic (to a new topic consisting of bad things you want to say about leftists)?

 

[Glitch]

Doesn't the government literally pay people to live in Alaska? Seems like a very odd state to use as an example of much of anything,

You were obviously educated by the Simpsons.

Oh my. Since you presumably have access to media, and are presumably intelligent, I can't help but think you are posturing. The right's intolerance of alternate views and attempts to silence them are so obvious that I hesitate to give counter-examples to your position. Do you seriously think this or are you just ****ing with me?

More like, you are incapable of providing "counter-examples" because you have none. Only leftist filth seek to destroy those who disagree with them. Like I said, it is part of the left's psychosis because only the left are mentally deranged.

Same response. Are you kidding? Is this a parody? Or have you actually not heard of any right wing or Christian attempts to tell others what they must believe? Gaslighting not appreciated, is this for real?

Christians have indeed attempted to impose their views on others, but they have never sought to destroy someone who disagreed with them, like leftist freaks do on a daily basis. Are you incapable of telling the difference between the two?

The last time I can recall Christians attempting to foist their beliefs on anyone was with the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which was held to be unconstitutional. Yet you will not find them persecuting those who do not agree with them, like the State of Colorado recently did to that Christian baker.

Some on the left (far too many, in my view) match your characterization. Not all, and I don't think it's even most (though I would entertain the possibility that it's most, that's not an absurd position -- much there would depend on underlying definitions of things like "leftists"). But the left clearly has a blind spot when it comes to hating America, holding it to a different standard, attacking it for everything while being apologists for other nations and cultures, shoving its academic head up its *** to try to avoid conclusions it does not like, and so forth.

However, as much as that topic is also interesting, I am pointing to the fact that many right wing churches and pastors blatantly disregard and deliberately violate rules of non-partisanship while still expecting to be treated as non-profit entities engaged in charity. Do you deny this, or just want to change the topic (to a new topic consisting of bad things you want to say about leftists)?

What rules of non-partisanship?

There are no such rules. Catholic priests have even served in Congress before 1981. They only stopped because Pope John Paul II issued a decree in 1980 stating that priests should not hold public office. There are still reverends and other religious people who serve in Congress, or otherwise hold public office. As the US Constitution states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."