Pastors to defy IRS

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0926/p03s02-uspo.html

Pulpit politics: Pastors to defy IRS
Some plan to endorse a candidate Sunday, challenging federal rules that limit partisan activity by tax-exempt groups.
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 26, 2008 edition

During sermons this Sunday, some 35 pastors across the country will tell their congregations which presidential candidate they should vote for, "according to the Scriptures."

Their endorsements represent a direct challenge to federal tax law, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan political activity.


The clergy have embraced that risk, hoping their actions will trigger an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, which would then enable a Christian legal advocacy group to take the IRS to court and challenge the constitutionality of the ban.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal group based in Arizona, recruited the pastors for "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" to press their claim that the IRS tax code violates the free speech of religious leaders.

"I have a First Amendment right to say whatever I want to say, and I've never thought it was appropriate that as a pastor I could not share my political concerns with the congregation," says the Rev. Gus Booth, pastor at Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn.

Mr. Booth will endorse Sen. John McCain on Sunday, and has already told his congregation that as Christians, they could not vote for Sen. Barack Obama due to his position on abortion.

Mixing religion and politics

For other clergy ? and legal experts ? this is not a question of free speech, but an act contrary to the law that could also be dangerous for religion, potentially dividing and politicizing congregations.

"This is not a free speech issue," says the Rev. Eric Williams, pastor of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. "Any person, including a pastor, can endorse a candidate as a private individual. And if a church wants to do it, it can give up its tax-exempt status."

He and another Ohio pastor held a press conference Sept. 8 inviting clergy to preach against such partisan activity, and more than 100 pastors in several states did so on Sept. 21, says Mr. Williams.

The Ohio pastors also sent a complaint to the IRS requesting an investigation of the ADF and whether its initiative violated its charity status. They had the support of three former IRS officials who criticized the ADF for encouraging clergy to violate the law by endorsing political candidates.

According to the ADF, this is not about endorsing candidates, but about protecting religious expression and about who regulates what is said from the pulpit.

"We believe the decision about whether to address candidates should rest with the pastor and congregation, not the government," says Erik Stanley, the ADF's senior legal counsel.

This is religious speech, not political speech, because the pastors evaluate candidates in light of the Scripture, he says.

The prohibition against partisan activity by charitable groups was enacted by Congress in 1954, and the statute has been upheld in the courts. In three cases, courts have concluded it does not violate the Constitution's free speech clause, according to Robert Tuttle, professor of law and religion at George Washington University in Washington.

In a national poll released in August, two-thirds of American adults say that churches should not come out in favor of one political candidate over another. The Pew poll shows widespread agreement, including among Republicans and white Evangelicals (both at 64 percent).

Also, under the IRS rules, clergy are free to discuss any issues of public concern in their sermons, and houses of worship can engage in nonpartisan voter-registration and civic education.

Previous challenges failed

At various times, bills have been introduced in Congress attempting to change or repeal the rule limiting partisan activity ? most recently in 2004 ? but they have not passed.

The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance (IA) in Washington, D.C., sees the current initiative as part of a political strategy.

"It is not accidental that the people who want the church to take on a political identity are the people who argue there's no separation of church and state in the Constitution and that there's been a misinterpretation of religious liberty all along," he says.

In response to the ADF's initiative, the IA launched a campaign to have clergy sign a six-point pledge to uphold standards of nonpartisanship during the election campaign. Several hundred of them have done so.

"As a minister, I want religion in this nation to have the credibility, integrity, and authority to be a force for reconciliation and healing, for bringing a divided nation together, not contributing to further divisiveness," Dr. Gaddy says.

If houses of worship became "bastions of political partisanship, that would be a blow to the positive power of religion."

Mr. Booth disagrees, saying that "absolutely" churches should be able to engage in political activity, since the Bible calls for taking the gospel into every aspect of life.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which mails letters to churches alerting them to the IRS rules and has reported alleged violators to the IRS, issued a warning that, "Taking part in this reckless stunt is a one-way ticket to loss of tax exemption."

The IRS says its first goal has always been education on the issue. It plans to "monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."



I don't understand. If they pastors want their church to endorse candidates why don't they just give up their tax exempt status?



 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Churches shouldn't be politicking at all - for either side. In my area of the country, it seems they're supporting Obama more.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
That's fine. Let's just start taxing all churches equally. The country could sure use the revenue and then churches can blather all they want about what the Bible says about Obama and McCain.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Well I'm sure Jesus will intervene to stop the heresy and witchcraft of the IRS as it crawls out of the bowels of hell to punish the faithful followers of the Almighty Hustle.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,822
10,530
147
I sincerely hope all 35 immediately lose their tax-exempt status. The rule of law trumps, "God says I can do what I want without consequences", imho.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
I hate people that do this. They ran a bit on this on NPR and I remember one of the Pastors saying that their goal was to support the 'godliest candidate.' That right there pissed me off.

If my pastor ever pulled that bullsh!t on me I'd be pissed at the very least.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
No, we should not remove tax exemption status from churches because that would invite every church to run their political agenda in exchange for giving up their tax exemption status and would be absolutely disastrous situation. No, no, no and no. Church and state are separated for a reason.

However, I do not like what's happening either. I think a better solution would be to fine any church who tell their congregation who to vote for. And increase fines for repeated offenses.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
No, we should not remove tax exemption status from churches because that would invite every church to run their political agenda in exchange for giving up their tax exemption status and would be absolutely disastrous situation. No, no, no and no. Church and state are separated for a reason.

However, I do not like what's happening either. I think a better solution would be to fine any church who tell their congregation who to vote for. And increase fines for repeated offenses.

How would taxing churches violate separation of church and state?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: techs
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0926/p03s02-uspo.html

Pulpit politics: Pastors to defy IRS

Some plan to endorse a candidate Sunday, challenging federal rules that limit partisan activity by tax-exempt groups.

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 26, 2008 edition

During sermons this Sunday, some 35 pastors across the country will tell their congregations which presidential candidate they should vote for, "according to the Scriptures."

Their endorsements represent a direct challenge to federal tax law, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan political activity.


The clergy have embraced that risk, hoping their actions will trigger an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, which would then enable a Christian legal advocacy group to take the IRS to court and challenge the constitutionality of the ban.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal group based in Arizona, recruited the pastors for "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" to press their claim that the IRS tax code violates the free speech of religious leaders.

"I have a First Amendment right to say whatever I want to say, and I've never thought it was appropriate that as a pastor I could not share my political concerns with the congregation," says the Rev. Gus Booth, pastor at Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn.

Mr. Booth will endorse Sen. John McCain on Sunday, and has already told his congregation that as Christians, they could not vote for Sen. Barack Obama due to his position on abortion.

Mixing religion and politics


I don't understand. If they pastors want their church to endorse candidates why don't they just give up their tax exempt status?

This all can't be.

I call shens because I was told in here I was lying when I attended a church in Louisiana and the paster preached that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
If they go through with it, they should be arrested, tried for violating the law for their crimes. Those found guilty would find a new meaning to the concept of having "faith in their convictions."
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
I don't like the current rules that are set up for 501 (c) 3s, when it comes to politics, BUT I understand why they are in place and see their benefits - for ALL non-profits.


I mean we don't want some one to start the Church of the Democrat to raise money and run campaigns tax free?

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well, I have no problem with it at all. Let their church leaders open their big fat political yaps, which means the IRS will tax them, until their congregations wise up, fire the big fat yap saps, at which point the congregation can ask the IRS for their tax exempt status back.

Meanwhile, a bunch of malcontent ministers will be unemployed and unemployable.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
That's fine. Let's just start taxing all churches equally. The country could sure use the revenue and then churches can blather all they want about what the Bible says about Obama and McCain.

this.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: Harvey
If they go through with it, they should be arrested, tried for violating the law for their crimes. Those found guilty would find a new meaning to the concept of having "faith in their convictions."

Huh? Arrested? Tried? For what exactly? Under the law, the church risks losing tax exempt status if it engages in political activity, but there's nothing criminal about it.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
If they go through with it, they should be arrested, tried for violating the law for their crimes. Those found guilty would find a new meaning to the concept of having "faith in their convictions."

I don't think it makes them criminals. Wouldn't mind seeing some tax exempt statuses pulled though.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Hey, if they want to become political action groups, then they're going to have to be taxed just like the others. That's how it works.

The article implies that it's a trap and that these groups consider the ban unconstitutional. Hey, there's nothing in the constitution about tax-exempt status for churches. Fair is fair.

Everyone knows we could use the money. And then scientology will no longer be tax-exempt, either; just revoke everyone's status equally.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
"As a minister, I want religion in this nation to have the credibility, integrity, and authority to be a force for reconciliation and healing, for bringing a divided nation together, not contributing to further divisiveness," Dr. Gaddy says.

If houses of worship became "bastions of political partisanship, that would be a blow to the positive power of religion."

Amen!
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Do PACs pay taxes? The same laws should apply to ALL "non-profit" organizations. If any non-profit organization would be punished this way, then I'm all for it. If the law only applies to churches, then it's just another double standard, brought to you by big government.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Harvey
If they go through with it, they should be arrested, tried for violating the law for their crimes. Those found guilty would find a new meaning to the concept of having "faith in their convictions."

Huh? Arrested? Tried? For what exactly? Under the law, the church risks losing tax exempt status if it engages in political activity, but there's nothing criminal about it.

For the not paying their taxes after they lose tax-exempt status part.

The pastors clearly have no appreciation for the idea of politics remaining secular.

I think that's their right if we value their freedom of religion - though imagine they had 75% of of the public as members and could simply annoint the president who openly supported their religious agenda - but it does nullify their right to exemption from taxes as non-political religious groups, a right created to protect religions from punitive taxation.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Do PACs pay taxes? The same laws should apply to ALL "non-profit" organizations. If any non-profit organization would be punished this way, then I'm all for it. If the law only applies to churches, then it's just another double standard, brought to you by big government.

Nope. The Constitution puts religion in its own separate catagory apart from other non-profit organizations.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar?s

If they are turning their "church" into a PAC, they lose their special treatment and join the rest of society in funding the government they now seek to control.

Edit: though to be precise, the main change will be that donations to these theocrats will no longer be deductible by their flock. Just like donations to other PACs.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Nope. The Constitution puts religion in its own separate catagory apart from other non-profit organizations.
And where is that in the Constitution? I'm not seeing it. Even if it is there, why is it there? It shouldn't be. The playing field should be the same for all organizations, regardless of their nominal reason for existence.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
This is the correct position:

"This is not a free speech issue," says the Rev. Eric Williams, pastor of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. "Any person, including a pastor, can endorse a candidate as a private individual. And if a church wants to do it, it can give up its tax-exempt status."

-------------------------

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
No, we should not remove tax exemption status from churches because that would invite every church to run their political agenda in exchange for giving up their tax exemption status and would be absolutely disastrous situation. No, no, no and no. Church and state are separated for a reason.

However, I do not like what's happening either. I think a better solution would be to fine any church who tell their congregation who to vote for. And increase fines for repeated offenses.

^This already exists (see underlined part).

Money-wise, the only difference between a political campaign/527 etc is that contributions to them are NOT deductible by the donor, whereas they are to a church.

Otherwise, all of these orgs are non-profits already.

IMO, fining a church for making a statement would conflict with the 1st Amendment. Reclassifying them from a church type np to a political np is the correct avenue.

-------------------------

Originally posted by: Harvey
If they go through with it, they should be arrested, tried for violating the law for their crimes. Those found guilty would find a new meaning to the concept of having "faith in their convictions."

^ Harvey, it's not a crime to violate a particular provision of np tax law. It just means your organization is re-classified.

In tax law, our only criminal provision(s) are those for criminal (as opposed to civil) tax fraud. I can't see that possibly happening under these circumstances.

Now that these boobs have identified themselves the IRS should them a letter, and perhaps make a little *visit* to explain the consequences. If they wanna proceed, fine; they'll never win in court. It's been tried before and failed; it has to, otherwise every political campaign and 527 etc would be on par with a church meaning that political contributions would be deductible. Not gonna happen, PERIOD.

Fern
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Fern

^ Harvey, it's not a crime to violate a particular provision of np tax law. It just means your organization is re-classified.

In tax law, our only criminal provision(s) are those for criminal (as opposed to civil) tax fraud. I can't see that possibly happening under these circumstances.

Thanks. Yeah, I posted that up too quickly. The crime I had in mind would be if they then tried to maintain their tax exempt status. If that were to be revoked, and they refused to pay any taxes they owed, it could fall under criminal jurisdiction.

That's what put Al Capone in the pokey. :thumbsup:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, fining a church for making a statement would conflict with the 1st Amendment.

Many laws regarding speech and religious conduct conflict with the first amendment (hate speech, burning crosses, peyote use). It's always a balancing act and the 1st amendment is not absolute.

The law does not prohibit any church from saying whatever it wants. It merely provides that should they exercise the right to say whatever they want and enter the political fray by endorsing specific candidates, then they can no longer claim tax exempt status.