Atheists Now After Ministers' Housing Allowances
Sacramento, CA – Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute is filing court papers this week to intervene in a federal lawsuit filed Friday by well-known atheist Michael Newdow. The lawsuit challenges long-standing federal and state tax exemptions for housing allowances provided by churches and religious institutions to members of the clergy.
PJI is currently facing off with Newdow in two other lawsuits, both in the federal courts of appeal. In one case, he is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to order that the national motto, "In God We Trust," be stricken from our nation's coins. In a second lawsuit defended by PJI, Newdow is asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to have prayers and the phrase "So help me God" at presidential inaugurations declared unconstitutional. Newdow is also behind a long-running lawsuit against recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the new case, Newdow represents the Freedom From Religion Foundation and several of its members. They are claiming that provisions of federal and state law that have for decades permitted tax-exempt housing allowances for ministers are unconstitutional. For most churches, a housing allowance has taken the place of providing a home or parsonage to augment pastors' often meager salaries.Pacific Justice Institute is assembling a broad, diverse coalition of local ministers who would be directly affected if the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. PJI expects to file a motion to intervene on Wednesday.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Just in time for Halloween, radical anti-religionists are unleashing their favorite scare tactic: a federal lawsuit, this time directly attacking ministers. It is unfortunate that these chronic litigants fail to see the invaluable community services provided by members of the clergy. Ministers of many faiths are dependent on the housing allowance to supplement their meager salaries. We will not stand by and let anti-religious ghouls threaten yet another American tradition."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Way back when, when dad was a pastor, I lived in a house that was subsidized by the church . A two by four frame with 3/4 inch plywood; that was all. It was cold. For obvious reasons, the city tore it down.
My sister had birth defects. Parents could not afford fixing the house. Even with what did come from the church (maximum membership: 200), I didnt have a birthday party until I was 16 years old.
Ministers at small churches are almost always on call. Death in the family at 2am? The minister leaves his home and comforts the family. A needy family? The minister takes some goods to them (in my case, some of my own clothes). Difficult marriage ? The minister goes to the home to help settle things. Child acting up? The minister tries to help the parents. Not to count the times that needy people/marriage counseling/problem children turned up at our door...and we, the children of the minister, had to be turned out of our own house while dad did his job. Once we werent...and the impromptu marriage counseling session turned into a screaming match between husband and wife . The minister may get paid, but his wife and kids certainly dont.
Today it can be successfully argued that some clergy should not have housing allowances. These have good salaries or have already made good money in other jobs . They have good sized houses and often have more than one minister so that one can be on call while the others rest. For those ministers that I have seen in this position, they refuse subsidies even though they are offered.
Many ministers dont need subsidies. However, it does not logically follow that all ministers dont need subsidies. Some need that subsidy just to live. Believe me, because I have been there.
"Some need that subsidy just to live."
Lots of people are in similar circumstances, why should ministers be singled out for a housing allowance/ subsidies?
We were poor. Dirt poor. Why should we have been excluded from any housing subsidies ?
Besides, this was one house (if you could have called it that) that was built on church property with church funds for the express use of the minister and family . When we moved and got our own house, we were provided with an 'allowance' from the church...not to pay for the house, but to pay for the different things that my father built for the church at our house. My father had to provide a written list of materials used along with reciepts for those things (furniture, dividers, cribs, stands, lamps, etc) that he was asked by the church to construct. I fail to see how that is not fair.
If your argument is that well-off ministers shouldnt get a subsidy, then I heartily agree. Some ministers would qualify for allowance/subsidies, only due to their income (more specifically, very low income). Are you stating that even if a family does qualify for allowance or subisdy due to low income that they should be rejected just because the head of a family is a minister?
“We were poor. Dirt poor. Why should we have been excluded from any housing subsidies ?”
Where did I state that ministers should be excluded from housing subsidies? I said that if there were housing subsidies to be offered then why should they go exclusively to Christian ministers?
“My father had to provide a written list of materials used along with reciepts for those things (furniture, dividers, cribs, stands, lamps, etc) that he was asked by the church to construct. I fail to see how that is not fair.”
That it was only offered to your father because he was a minister? Why shouldn’t others in a similar economic standing get subsidies? Why is it only churches that can offer these subsidies to their employees, and not any arbitrary business?
“Are you stating that even if a family does qualify for allowance or subisdy due to low income that they should be rejected just because the head of a family is a minister?”
No, I am saying that subsidies should not be handed to clergy. If to be subsidies then it should apply to people due to their income level, not due to income level + job.
You agree that ministers making a high salary should not get subsidies… why do you think that low earning non-ministers should be denied subsidies?
"That it was only offered to your father because he was a minister? Why shouldn’t others in a similar economic standing get subsidies ? Why is it only churches that can offer these subsidies to their employees, and not any arbitrary business?"
It was offered to my father because he was expected to make certain things for the church . We never used them; they went to the church. It was not so much a housing allowance as a reimbursement for work done...and that did not include his time, nor the tools he had to buy to make those things...they were used in the church .
As I remember, there were 3 people that made things (woodworking) for the church; my dad happened to be the pastor. The others were members of the church. They also were reimbursed. So it was not so much a 'housing allowance' because dad was the minister but simply a reimbursment for work done.
Could there have been some other housing allowance that I didnt know of? Sure...I was just a kid. But I do remember picking weeds at the church. I remember once when somebody came over, mom took us out to breakfast...and she never took us out to breakfast. We had one TV - black and white. When it was the 4th of July, the most we got were sparklers, one box.
Back then, milk was delivered to the door in glass bottles. Mom doubled the milk by mixing it with powdered milk. Dad bought all his books (I inherited them...dad died a few months ago). We had two cars ...a 1956 chevy that didnt run and a station wagon. Then, for some reason still unknown to me, dad left the ministry.We had to move. Dad helped start a Credit Union. We travelled. We went to Disneyland. We went to the airport...for the first time in my life.
While dad was a minister he certainly didnt get rich. We didnt have the fancy house , or even a good house. When dad left the ministry, things got better. I dont understand why anybody would want to remove support just because dad was a minister during the lean years.
You still have not offered an explanation as to why ministers alone should benefit from this tax break. Why not teachers or health care workers ?
"I dont understand why anybody would want to remove support just because dad was a minister during the lean years."
And I am unsure why you wish to deny that support to others because they were not ministers during the 'lean' years.
For cryin out loud, we were POOR when my dad was a minister and we lived in the parsonage! We would have qualified for assistance had my dad not been a minister! No, I dont have access to my dads check stubs, but I lived it. I have compared our life style back then to what qualified for assistance back then, and we definitely qualified. Why do you think that all ministers are rich? Or are you simply discriminating based on religion ? Or do you object to the church supplying a place for the pastor to live?
Let me tell you, all that place was was 3/4" plywood for the outer walls supported by 2x4s' There was no plywood or sheetrock or anything on the inside...with the exception of the restroom, ceilings, and roof. Oh, mom made the walls look good...by stapling up wallpaper onto the 2x4s to make it look like there was a wall there! After all, she had to hide the plumbing with something! It was built a long time ago, and it was rightly condemned and torn down by the city. It certainly was not anywhere near a house . It was more like a simple shack.
When we moved into a house, yeah, the neighbors liked it because they had a minister on the block, and people didnt mess with the minister. People knew where to go when they were desperate...our house. And they did come, both church members and non-church members.
But that is enough about me. I suspect that you want some sort of political reasoning. You wont get that from me...I was there, friend. We were poor. If you want to discriminate against poor people based on what they do for a living, that is your issue, not mine.
And nowhere did I ever say that anybody else that qualified for support should not get support.
It is because you were poor that you should get a subsidy, not that your father was a minister.
"I have compared our life style back then to what qualified for assistance back then, and we definitely qualified."
Then why didn't you get assistance? Is there a law that prevents ministers from getting financial assistance from the government ?
"When we moved into a house , yeah, the neighbors liked it because they had a minister on the block, and people didnt mess with the minister. People knew where to go when they were desperate...our house. And they did come, both church members and non-church members"
The same can be said of doctors / nurses , police officers, social workers , mechanics, electricians...
"If you want to discriminate against poor people based on what they do for a living, that is your issue, not mine."
Actually you are the one calling for discrimination , when you refuse to open the benefit given to ministers in the low income bracket to all those in the low income bracket.
I am not, and have not, said that ministers should be denied economic assistance. What I have said is that benefits should not be given to ministers, because they are ministers. I have no problem with a minister in the lower income brackets getting government aid, as long as that program is open to people regardless of their occupation.
"And nowhere did I ever say that anybody else that qualified for support should not get support."
You did, when you supported a program that gave aid specifically to ministers.
A government program giving tax free housing allowances to ministers violates the separation of church and state ... and should be abolished. In its place a program open to all those in low income brackets would be perfectly reasonable to me.
Ok, so you want an argument. Here we go.
Part of clergys pay may (not must; may) be designated as a housing allowance. This allowance is supplied by the place of worship that has hired the clergy or the body representing all like places of worship (ex: denominational headquarters), not the state or the federal government . The housing allowance is declared separately when reporting taxes due to its nature; it is, as you rightly noted, tax free. So, if we were to come down to an amount of money we are arguing over it is not the housing allowance amount; rather, it is the amount that the housing allowance would be taxed.
If a place of worship decides to pay the head clergyperson $25k per year in regular pay but $250k per year in housing allowances, that sets off all sorts of red flags. Housing allowances given by a place of worship to a clergyperson generally have to be very well documented so that they can be explained and, if necessary, the housing allowance adjusted up or down based on documented need or lack thereof.
The items purchased with the housing allowance do not belong to the family ; rather, they belong to the place of worship (or the body representing all like places of worship) should the clergyperson leave the employment of said place of worship. When we moved out of our house when my dad left the pastorate, we had to essentially leave behind a furnished house. We did not own the furnishings save for those that were given to us by our grandparents. The next pastor was to live there. That is the way it happened in my situation.
The only argument against the housing allowance that could be produced is that the housing allowance given to clergy is tax-free and based not on federal or state law but on the wishes of the place of worship. The housing allowance is a decision made by the place of worship, not by the federal and/or state governments. Hence, support supplied to clergy for housing by their place of worship is separate from support supplied by the state/federal governments.
Places of worship also provide support in various ways to the community at large. Part of this support comes directly from clergy in the form either of direct physical aid (money, clothes, etc) or counselling. The clergys house is often, but not always, used in providing such aid, hence the housing allowance.
By the way (and I checked), we never did recieve any government assistance, not from local, state, or federal governments. We never displaced anybody from any federal or state program.
Now, if you see the tax-exempt status of the housing allowance to clergy as an attempt by the federal/state government to encourage religion , then I can see why you might object. In the past, clergy has been way underpaid. This can be said for other occupations such as teachers. These days, the clergy is not necessarily underpaid but in some circumstances may be. This is a subject that should be debated. Having been there, though, I do remember that it was a tight time financially.
“The housing allowance is declared separately when reporting taxes due to its nature; it is, as you rightly noted, tax free. So, if we were to come down to an amount of money we are arguing over it is not the housing allowance amount; rather, it is the amount that the housing allowance would be taxed.”
It is the tax free nature of the housing allowance, not the existence of the housing allowance, that is the issue here.
“The only argument against the housing allowance that could be produced is that the housing allowance given to clergy is tax-free and based not on federal or state law but on the wishes of the place of worship. The housing allowance is a decision made by the place of worship, not by the federal and/or state governments. Hence, support supplied to clergy for housing by their place of worship is separate from support supplied by the state/federal governments.”
And such support should be taxed, just as they are when a secular business provides such compensation.
“The clergys house is often, but not always, used in providing such aid, hence the housing allowance.”
Or it is a way to provide tax free compensation for services rendered… a tax dodge.
“By the way (and I checked), we never did recieve any government assistance, not from local, state, or federal governments. We never displaced anybody from any federal or state program.”
And what of the people in a similar economic situation who endured additional hardship because they could not benefit from a tax free housing allowance?
“Now, if you see the tax-exempt status of the housing allowance to clergy as an attempt by the federal/state government to encourage religion , then I can see why you might object.”
Among other reasons yes.
“In the past, clergy has been way underpaid. This can be said for other occupations such as teachers. These days, the clergy is not necessarily underpaid but in some circumstances may be. This is a subject that should be debated.”
The issue is not the pay of the clergy… that is a matter internal to the individual churches, and is not the secular governments concern. The issue is that a tax free housing allowance is being offered to the clergy, and not the population at large. If there is to be tax free housing allowances for those in the lower economic rungs then it should be available either without regard for the individual’s profession or to professions that benefit all members of the community (teachers, nurses , etc.) and not the clergy.
“Having been there, though, I do remember that it was a tight time financially.”
Times are / were tight for those outside of the clergy as well.