Connecticut church finance bill

[Zeitgeist]

Wow, that is kind of ballsy of state government. Good to see it was shot down. I mean, if you espouse freedom of religion, honor the constitution, surely this idea is an affront. Catholics are an easy target these days in popular culture, no surprise progressive New England is going after them.

--
HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - Thousands of Roman Catholics demonstrated in Connecticut on Wednesday against a state government proposal to shift control of parish finances to lay officials from priests and bishops.

Lawmakers effectively killed the legislation on Tuesday but nearly 4,000 Catholics still held a protest at the gold-domed state Capitol to express opposition to what they said was a threat to the separation of church and state.

"Religious freedom holds a privileged place in American society," said the Rev. Richard Ryscavage, who runs Fairfield University's Center for Faith and Public Life. "You tamper with that religious freedom at your own political peril."

Ryscavage was speaking at a hearing with state Republicans on Wednesday, a day after the Democratic backers of the bill agreed to kill it in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, at least for the rest of this year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52A7EQ20090311

[RubySlippers]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok that is the body of the First Amendment now where does it say the state cannot decide on the business matters withing a church they cannot make a law establishing a faith or prohibit the free exercise of religion in most cases - as long as their is not outstanding reason to. I would say the government had every right to pass this law and further to tax all religious property not de facto doing some service or activity otherwise exempted so that a non-religous entity would qualify for that exception. It also clearly doesn't ban the actions of a faith in politics or the public arena.

Its plain black and white English why one needs to interprete the language much if at all making up things not IN the amendments language is not something I see a need to do, unless we are talking specific extreme cases where there is a real interest fo the government. Like a religion that sacrificed children ok that is against the law on other grounds but where do they get this seperation clause. If that was in there it would have said something like ,and the government may not involve itself with religion or religion with affairs of state, is some simple language. Or you can amend the Constitution properly to make that law. Neither is the case here.

[Zeitgeist]

And now where does it say that a judge cannot post the 10 commandments in his or her courtroom, yet people call to the supposed same 'separation of church and state' to make their case on that issue.

I object to this idea simply on the basis of government interference in private institutions period, never mind the religious aspect.

Clearly the goal of some (if 'some' isn't you, than this isn't you!) is to control, divide and destroy religion.

Funny thing is, I'm not Catholic, religious or even spiritual, I am agnostic really. Still, time and again, over and over all I see is religion being attacked. Sometimes it is for good reason, but fervor and hatred towards people of faith is beginning to get out of hand, in my opinion.

[Inkidu]

I don't see he big deal of the government trying this it's not worth it. They can't to jack. Nearly everything a church does is tax exempt, plus you don't need an accounting degree to do the work. They just have to fill out the forms, and carry the ones. No this is a classic case of government interference in a private organization. That's a taboo on the market system.

[Oniya]

Catholics are an easy target these days in popular culture, no surprise progressive New England is going after them.

Are we talking about the New England where the Kennedy name is still practically venerated? ;)  I'm with Inki on this one, though - the financial side of a church is really just a business, if a tax-exempt business.  If the government can't dictate what employees handle the finances of the local Dunkin Donuts (also venerated in New England), then they can't dictate which employees handle the finances of a church.

[Zeitgeist]

Are we talking about the New England where the Kennedy name is still practically venerated? ;)  I'm with Inki on this one, though - the financial side of a church is really just a business, if a tax-exempt business.  If the government can't dictate what employees handle the finances of the local Dunkin Donuts (also venerated in New England), then they can't dictate which employees handle the finances of a church.

A fair point about Kennedy and Catholicism, but nevertheless a lot of progressive ideals have come out of New England of late. I would be equally unsurprised if this story had come out of the West coast.

This is really not where we want to go with government, in my opinion. The fact though that it was a religious organization that was the target of the bill really caught my eye, and I would reject any thought that that was coincidental.

[Trieste]

Hey. Hey. Connecticut is like the tagalong little brother. It likes to call itself New England, and the rest of us humour them because they pitch a big fit otherwise.

But this is not typical. I can't even imagine why a legislature would do that. So stupid.

[RubySlippers]

Are we talking about the New England where the Kennedy name is still practically venerated? ;)  I'm with Inki on this one, though - the financial side of a church is really just a business, if a tax-exempt business.  If the government can't dictate what employees handle the finances of the local Dunkin Donuts (also venerated in New England), then they can't dictate which employees handle the finances of a church.

Sure they can the states in fact have far more power here than the Federal government, see the 10th Amendment on this point. All they have to do is pass a law on who can do bookeeping and who may submit records in an organization. Its not interference in the churches on matters of faith. My only concern is it should cover all faiths and their organziations as well as businesses in general to be fair.

I would point out not taxes churches and related organizations encourages religion which is according to precedent also illegal using the common arguements, since it frees up funds for religious activities normally going to costs such as if they were taxable businesses. And it hurts their freedom to promote their agendas since tax exemption restricts their speech as in they can't involve themselves in politics if they are offended or support a party or person in races. So I can make a good case the language was not included in the First Amendment or elsewhere on purpose to mandate seperation of faith and government.

May I ask did anyone look at all the representatives in the First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights, not just a few big names, I have been checking and it seems many were men of deep faith. In afew cases people with ministry backgrounds. If so Thomas Jefferson may have been the odd case and they wanted religion involved in government.

[Oniya]

All they have to do is pass a law on who can do bookeeping and who may submit records in an organization. Its not interference in the churches on matters of faith. My only concern is it should cover all faiths and their organziations as well as businesses in general to be fair.

The problem in the initial post was that it was directed at the finances of a church (or possibly of churches in general).  As I said in my post,

If the government can't dictate what employees handle the finances of the local Dunkin Donuts (also venerated in New England), then they can't dictate which employees handle the finances of a church.

If I read your post right, you are suggesting that if it applied to all businesses (not just a church or even just all churches), then it would be fine - which is about what I was saying.

[Inkidu]

In order for this debate to continue Dunkin' Doughnuts will no longer be used as an example. I haven't had Dunkin' Doughnuts since I was a kid because some jackass drove his store through the only one south of the Mason Dixon line, selfish bastard...

The government has the hands-off policy when it comes to businesses. It's stupid that they should try to regulate the accounting of a private institution. It's like coming into someone's home to regulate their accounting.

[MHaji]

This seems like a trespass, and I would like to know the reasoning that prompted the proposal before I make any judgment. Was there some sort of deeply untoward activity going on behind the scenes?

The bill was crafted after the former pastor of St. John's Roman Catholic Church in the town of Darien pleaded guilty in September 2007 to stealing more than $1 million from the church and sentenced to more than three years in federal prison.

A-ha. I don't think this quite justifies the level of power transfer suggested here, but if a church is in a position to turn into an illicit tax shelter/racketeering organization, there needs to be some temporary oversight.

[Zeitgeist]

Laws were broken, and laws were enforced. Nothing much beyond that need be done. To take this as a  license to take over the financial details of a church or religion goes well beyond anything I'd like to see the government do.

More to the point though, I really do not think it was coincidental the bill's target was a religious institution.

In fact, here is the bill.

http://cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

[Inkidu]

This seems like a trespass, and I would like to know the reasoning that prompted the proposal before I make any judgment. Was there some sort of deeply untoward activity going on behind the scenes?

A-ha. I don't think this quite justifies the level of power transfer suggested here, but if a church is in a position to turn into an illicit tax shelter/racketeering organization, there needs to be some temporary oversight.

A government accountant can do the same thing.

[Oniya]

Wouldn't using a government accountant be the same thing as moving the control of the finances to a lay person instead of the priest/bishop?  (Also, the transfer to a lay employee of the church wouldn't actually prevent the illicit activity described in the quote MHaji provided.  A lay employee is just as capable of stealing money from the church.)

[Inkidu]

Wouldn't using a government accountant be the same thing as moving the control of the finances to a lay person instead of the priest/bishop?  (Also, the transfer to a lay employee of the church wouldn't actually prevent the illicit activity described in the quote MHaji provided.  A lay employee is just as capable of stealing money from the church.)

Yeah that's what I meant.

[MHaji]

A government accountant can do the same thing.

Only with the collusion of the church in question, if a system is set up where the church finances are checked, but not run, by the government accountant. In that case, more parties would need to be involved. I'm not saying that this is the wisest course, but it's certainly better than turning the entire shebang over to the government.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I object to this idea simply on the basis of government interference in private institutions period, never mind the religious aspect.

Same here.  Like the government is in any position to criticize others for money management...

[Zakharra]

Same here.  Like the government is in any position to criticize others for money management...

Word.

[Apple of Eris]

I don't see what's wrong with the bill. Did anyone actually read the bill or does everyone just assume CT wanted to socialze and take govt control of the church? What the bill does is place the chruch finances under the care of a group of directors who shall be lay members of the church's congregation.

What the law does is place the church's finances under the care of members of the church instead of letting the priest/bishop/whoever have absolute control over the finances. And since it's pretty likely at least one of those lay members will have some kind of financial knowledge wheras a single priest probably isn't going to, I think that might be a good thing. Also kind of helps make it harder to 'misappropriate funds' when you have your congregation to answer to and don't directly control the money.

The state wasn't trying to run the church finances here, they were trying to take money out of the priests hands and putting it into the church members' hands.
In my eyes, a good idea.

[Zeitgeist]

I don't see what's wrong with the bill. Did anyone actually read the bill or does everyone just assume CT wanted to socialze and take govt control of the church? What the bill does is place the chruch finances under the care of a group of directors who shall be lay members of the church's congregation.

What the law does is place the church's finances under the care of members of the church instead of letting the priest/bishop/whoever have absolute control over the finances. And since it's pretty likely at least one of those lay members will have some kind of financial knowledge wheras a single priest probably isn't going to, I think that might be a good thing. Also kind of helps make it harder to 'misappropriate funds' when you have your congregation to answer to and don't directly control the money.

The state wasn't trying to run the church finances here, they were trying to take money out of the priests hands and putting it into the church members' hands.
In my eyes, a good idea.

Indeed, you are correct in that. I would however disagree that it is the state's place or authority to tell any private organization, mush less one such as a church, how its finances are to be managed. Yes, even if it is only to just turn it over to the parishioners. Its just not the state's place, IMHO.

Not all things that sound good, are in fact good, or a good idea. Even with the best of intentions.

[Apple of Eris]

Well, the church is a corporation, and states regulate the corporations that are based/operating within their borders. Therefore, states can and should regulate church finances - to an extent.

[Nessy]

Well, the church is a corporation, and states regulate the corporations that are based/operating within their borders. Therefore, states can and should regulate church finances - to an extent.

Religious organization aren't exactly the same as corporations when it comes to the law. And while corporations have regulations regarding their finances (as in how information is reported and who is and who is not allowed to auditing in certain industries), I've not heard of the government forcing a corporation to change who does their finances just because they want the members to have control. That sounds very invasive to me, church or not.

[Apple of Eris]

Religious organization aren't exactly the same as corporations when it comes to the law. And while corporations have regulations regarding their finances (as in how information is reported and who is and who is not allowed to auditing in certain industries), I've not heard of the government forcing a corporation to change who does their finances just because they want the members to have control. That sounds very invasive to me, church or not.

No, they aren't. They're 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations under federal law which prohibits certain expenditures and activities and requires certain reporting standards for earnings and filings. Infortunately under federal law, churches are exempt from being forced to make their returns, reports, notices, and filings iopen to public inspection, but state law can force them to do so.

I like the CT law and wish it had passed. Actually I wish it had passed for ALL religious denominations nationwide. Churches should be held accountable to their members and their books should be made open to public inspection since they are a non-profit corporation and should not, in my opinion, be afforded any opaqueness in their operations not granted to other corporations holding the same status.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A Church can easily be viewed as a small buisness.  I do not think they can be labeled to the larger corporation status unless the Catholic Church itself were taken into the equation.  Individual churches are basically franchise operations from the Roman Catholic Church.  They collect donations from members, host events to achieve their own goals and perform housekeeping to themselves.  Most churches have a board of deacons or what have you to direct these operations.  A priest is typically head of that group.

My problem with this bill is that the government is abolishing the committe because the executive of the franchise did something illegal.  The state is attempting to take a buisness from its owners and place it into the hands of lay people.  This church did not borrow money from the state, did not place themselves at the mercy of the state but instead the members of the church were robbed.  If those members demanded some financial oversight or they would cease donations, I would find that acceptable.

The State may have the authority to govern fianances in their district, but I think they are making an example of a poor target.  Many churches across this country have evangealists and leaders that have stolen money.  Embezelment and corruption have been found in all of them, but this in an unusual reaction.  Corporations have likewise done this over and over again.  Buisness owners have cheated on their taxes before without the government turning their company over to employees or worse yet customers. 

This sounds like an internal matter for the congregation to handle, not for the government to busy itself rearranging.

I agree largely with Apple on the Churches needing to become more of a non-profit institution.  The problem is that if they come in that way there is alot of BS going to be thrown around.  Such as in my area it was a huge contrversy over extending state education vouchers to parochial schools.

As a sidenote, if I were part of the CT government and saw religious people rushing to "Seperation of Church and State" for their defense.  I would never let them live it down.

[Zakharra]

 But since they -are- churches, they fall under a very gray area for the government to be dabbling in. If the government can tell a church how it runs it's finances, that can be seen as stepping across the 'Seperation of Church and State' that so many on both sides have such an issue with.

[Nessy]

No, they aren't. They're 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations under federal law which prohibits certain expenditures and activities and requires certain reporting standards for earnings and filings. Infortunately under federal law, churches are exempt from being forced to make their returns, reports, notices, and filings iopen to public inspection, but state law can force them to do so.

I like the CT law and wish it had passed. Actually I wish it had passed for ALL religious denominations nationwide. Churches should be held accountable to their members and their books should be made open to public inspection since they are a non-profit corporation and should not, in my opinion, be afforded any opaqueness in their operations not granted to other corporations holding the same status.

Held accountable for what exactly? I haven't heard of any law that said members are not allowed to ask questions. If they choose not to ask questions, and not demand accountability, then that's up to the members. If the church won't give the answers or open up their books, members can go somewhere else.  We have a handful of small businesses in the area every year that have employees embezzling money, stealing identities, what have you. The government can't micro-manage every business that has the potential to screw their members.  We had two fitness centers shut down doors over night, one that had a note that said sorry. The owner took a 2-year membership fee the day before from one of the members. The fact that this is a church and a non-profit gives it more weight than just any small business, but it's an unfortunate thing to happen that I don't think requires a heavy hand to micro-manage in the hopes of protecting everyone from themselve.

Having said that, I think there are certainly areas where some religious organizations have taken advantage of their non-profit status and might need to be reminded that that status is not a right and has regulations attached to it.

[Oniya]

No, they aren't. They're 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations under federal law which prohibits certain expenditures and activities and requires certain reporting standards for earnings and filings. Infortunately under federal law, churches are exempt from being forced to make their returns, reports, notices, and filings iopen to public inspection, but state law can force them to do so.

Now, revoking that exemption would go a long way in preventing that kind of mismanagement.

[Zakharra]

Now, revoking that exemption would go a long way in preventing that kind of mismanagement.

How? Mismanagement, corruption and embezzlement  exist in nonprofits that -do- follow the rules. How would this stop such actions?

[Oniya]

It wouldn't necessarily stop the corruption, but by making the returns, reports, notices, and filings open for public inspection instead of allowing them to keep it under wraps takes away a level of concealment.  It's like the current change in reporting that some of the offshore banks are doing - those people that have been using offshore banks to hide money from the IRS are no longer able to.

[Zakharra]

 I can see that to a point. The proposed law is extremely in a gray area, with the 'business' in question being a religion.

Besides, didn't they find the embezzelment? It didn't stay hidden for long. It was caught.

[Oniya]

They did catch it eventually, but I'd say that we can't know how long it was going on.  Would it have reached a million dollars if the books had been open for public inspection?

[Zakharra]

 Kind of like how they caught Bernard Madoff after his scheme fell through? His was going for years and wasn't caught until it fell apart. Then it was noticed after $50 billion was scammed.

[Oniya]

That has been described as a rather exceptional case, to be fair.  The thing about Ponzi schemes is that they look really good on paper, until people want to start using the money that they've been told they have.  All of Madoff's paperwork apparently looked convincing, but when the recession hit, he had to use incoming money to directly pay off the excess claims that the initial investments hadn't lived up to, rather than investing the incoming money.

Nothing is going to outright stop corruption, but closed books make it easier to hide it.  Non-church 501(c)(3) institutions have to have open books, so I don't see any arguable reason that churches shouldn't have to.

[Zakharra]

 Theoretically, Madoff's books were open for viewing too and he hide it extemely well. 

Part of my problem with the law is it interferes with a religion. Do you think governmental officials would resist the lure of being able to closely examine church financial records and not find ways to apply pressure on the organizations?
If the government can distact to a religion how it manages it business, in intimatye detail, then where is the seperation of state and church?

[Nessy]

Theoretically, Madoff's books were open for viewing too and he hide it extemely well. 

His books were open for viewing, and he didn't hide it very well actually. There are several reports that the SEC was notified that there was something going on, they just didn't look into it properly. But you make a very good point, open books doesn't prevent anyone from just cooking the books.

I don't thinkt he government should be snooping around religious organizations financials, with a few rare exception, and if members of a the organization are so concerned with where their money is going, they can start asking questions and expect answers or stop tithing (paying). Otherwise, I assume its a regular criminal case, and we have a system setup for thieves.

[Apple of Eris]

Part of my problem with the law is it interferes with a religion. Do you think governmental officials would resist the lure of being able to closely examine church financial records and not find ways to apply pressure on the organizations?
If the government can distact to a religion how it manages it business, in intimatye detail, then where is the seperation of state and church?

Governments already do to an extent. They prohibit church organizations from donating to political causes or openly endorsing candidates, not that this stops those groups from doing so.

Government officials can already examine church records, churches are a business in the United States, they are regulated as per a business with some exemptions. One of those being no need to make their financial records a matter of public record. Personally, I think that ALL non-profit groups should have to make their records public, whether religious in nature or not. If the church is dedicated to matters spiritual, why are they so worried about showing their matters financial?

Also, if the lay people could examine the books, they might get answers as to why it seems every church in teh area, every diocese is crying for money money money. If you're donating you should be allowed to see how it's spent. Maybe you didn't want to put tat five dollars in and find out its going for new tires on PopeForce One instead of to your community.

What I'm saying is there should not be an exemption in the reporting standards for religious groups. They should be held to the SAME standard as all other non-profits.

As to the Connecticut Bill, I still support it. Of course I'd also support a bill that uses the right of eminent domain to seize all churches and their property and build low income housing in their place. But that's why I'll never be president.

[Oniya]

What I'm saying is there should not be an exemption in the reporting standards for religious groups. They should be held to the SAME standard as all other non-profits.

Yup - that's where I'm coming from as well.

[Zakharra]

 

Of course I'd also support a bill that uses the right of eminent domain to seize all churches and their property and build low income housing in their place. But that's why I'll never be president.

Which would be a direct violation of the freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution.  Eminent domain should rarely be used IMO, and only  for strictly public use like building a highway or large scale pubic use item. Not for public housing.

[Nessy]

As to the Connecticut Bill, I still support it. Of course I'd also support a bill that uses the right of eminent domain to seize all churches and their property and build low income housing in their place. But that's why I'll never be president.

I am not sure you would have the same position is the government decided that your house and lot would benefit the community better if they mowed it down and put up a low income houses or a highway. Churches still pay for maintaince and buidling on their property, and it's not just churches by the way. Other religious organizations have the same protection. I think its one thing to question how much information churches should have to report to the public but to support eminent domain as appropriate for public housing, or eminent domain to put up strip malls in poor areas, or eminent domain to put up a street when a few blocks down the street could serve the same purpose and not destroy someone else's work... eminent domain is not a power to the government needs to be using without strict caution in this country under any circumstances.

[Apple of Eris]

I am not sure you would have the same position is the government decided that your house and lot would benefit the community better if they mowed it down and put up a low income houses or a highway. Churches still pay for maintaince and buidling on their property, and it's not just churches by the way. Other religious organizations have the same protection. I think its one thing to question how much information churches should have to report to the public but to support eminent domain as appropriate for public housing, or eminent domain to put up strip malls in poor areas, or eminent domain to put up a street when a few blocks down the street could serve the same purpose and not destroy someone else's work... eminent domain is not a power to the government needs to be using without strict caution in this country under any circumstances.

Would I be upset, sure. But that argument has nothing what-so-ever to do with my wanting to see those properties siezed. Is that an extremist view? Absolutely. Do I acknowledge it? Yes, I do.

None of which really has anything to do with my major point. Why should religious institutions, formed as section 501(c)(3) companies in the IRS tax code, recieve some kind of government opaqueness as to their financials, whereas other groups having the SAME STATUS do not? I do not believe a religious institution should be given an exemption. That's the real point of my post which everyone but Oniya chose to ignore.

Either way, I've done enough arguing and ranting for the day. Toodles.

[Nessy]

Actually it wasn't ignored, i mentioned my opinion on the matter earlier but your comment on the eminent domain as a power that should be used to strip an organization of their buildings to build low income housing and the idea that the government should use a power that can be, and has been used abusively  in the past so readily seemed more important than telling than what you say your major point is.

[RubySlippers]

Governments already do to an extent. They prohibit church organizations from donating to political causes or openly endorsing candidates, not that this stops those groups from doing so.

Government officials can already examine church records, churches are a business in the United States, they are regulated as per a business with some exemptions. One of those being no need to make their financial records a matter of public record. Personally, I think that ALL non-profit groups should have to make their records public, whether religious in nature or not. If the church is dedicated to matters spiritual, why are they so worried about showing their matters financial?

Also, if the lay people could examine the books, they might get answers as to why it seems every church in teh area, every diocese is crying for money money money. If you're donating you should be allowed to see how it's spent. Maybe you didn't want to put tat five dollars in and find out its going for new tires on PopeForce One instead of to your community.

What I'm saying is there should not be an exemption in the reporting standards for religious groups. They should be held to the SAME standard as all other non-profits.

As to the Connecticut Bill, I still support it. Of course I'd also support a bill that uses the right of eminent domain to seize all churches and their property and build low income housing in their place. But that's why I'll never be president.

Exactly my point I keep commenting to various pastors and the like in my area taking this tax exemption on their main ministries violates their First Amendment rights of free speech. I proposed seperating their active ministry as in the Church proper from legitimate charities making each of those tax-exempt seperately say a homeless shelter or free clinic or some other charity. So the main Church being taxed can be politically active.

And to note there is no Seperation of Church and State in the First Amendment, just read it its in plain simple English not some archaic language. The government cannot establish a Church as a state faith as per the Church of England or the Russian Orthodox Church at the time or interfere without a serious reason the free expression of religion. Taxing Church property or having business oversight is not interfering anyone can express their religion in this nation and any center of faith can do so, they just might have to have smaller buildings to do so. I for one have no problem with a soup kitchen run by a church being a seperate entity and tax exempt, just do so apart from a Church proper. And it would also demand that property owned used for a profit say by the Catholic Church or Scientologists cannot be exempt without it being demonstrated to be used for a non-profit purpose. The standards would match any secular charity in that over just being demarked for "religious use" but for a community service at large. Which I feel is a far better standard to use.

[Zakharra]

 

And to note there is no Seperation of Church and State in the First Amendment, just read it its in plain simple English not some archaic language. The government cannot establish a Church as a state faith as per the Church of England or the Russian Orthodox Church at the time or interfere without a serious reason the free expression of religion. Taxing Church property or having business oversight is not interfering anyone can express their religion in this nation and any center of faith can do so, they just might have to have smaller buildings to do so.

It was clear to the founders, but their decendants (us) do not see it so 'clearly'. As evidence by how others see the definition in modern times. Taxing Church property is a chancy thing when prohibitive property taxes can be levied on land. Many old churches have prime land in cities that 'could' be put to better use by a business. I can see how many town councils could be swayed to condem old churches and force them to close to be sold to a developer that can pay far more in taxes when the land is developed.

[Nessy]

It was clear to the founders, but their decendants (us) do not see it so 'clearly'. As evidence by how others see the definition in modern times. Taxing Church property is a chancy thing when prohibitive property taxes can be levied on land. Many old churches have prime land in cities that 'could' be put to better use by a business. I can see how many town councils could be swayed to condem old churches and force them to close to be sold to a developer that can pay far more in taxes when the land is developed.

If this church was old enough, they could probably attempt to declare it historical which would prevent anyone from demolishing it say for a brand new more profittable or beneficial (depending on how you define beneficial) building. I'll agree that there could be a very strong argument against the way the USA taxes (or doesn't tax) religious organization,s and there could be a strong argument for having them open their books as other non-profits do; however, I don't think there is any ground to stand on when it comes to forcing them to have their finances (shifting control as they call it) done by someone else as we don't really have laws in place that say your books have to be done by this person and not that one (in most cases) for private organizations, and these are private.