Preach About Politicians? May 9, 2008
Posted by Michael in News, Politics, Religion.trackback
Currently, if a pastor preaches about a particular candidate, the church may face a smackdown from the IRS. A conservative political group is trying to change that.
NEW YORK — Conservative legal advocates are recruiting pastors nationwide to defy an IRS ban on preaching about politicians, in a challenge they hope will abolish the restriction.
The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.
Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.
However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.
The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.
I sort of agree with that. The government should have nothing to say about what emanates from the pulpit. Maybe.
On the other hand, I don’t want “churches” to become covert tax-free political fronts that are exempt from the reporting requirements of other political organizations, especially regarding where their money is coming from. So, um, I’m thinking about this
Johnson said about 100 pastors have expressed interest in participating so far.
The IRS has stepped up monitoring of nonprofit political activity during the 2008 election. Punishments can range from a financial penalty to loss of tax-exempt status.
IRS investigations are confidential and the agency does not discuss the cases.
However, the United Church of Christ, which counts Sen. Barack Obama as a member, has said that it is under IRS review because of a speech given by the Democratic presidential candidate at the denomination’s national meeting last year.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group in Washington, monitors church political activity and consistently files complaints with the IRS. They said Friday that they will notify the agency of any pastor who participates in the ADF campaign.
Interesting. The conservatives are defending the right of the UCC to implicitly endorse Obama. One hundred conservative pastors are interested in defying the IRS. There’s trouble brewing.
Some religious groups support keeping politics out of the pulpit.
J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, which advocates for religious freedom, said churches should be involved in public issues, but partisan activity can “compromise the essential calling to spread the Gospel.”
“The church can’t raise prophetic fist at a candidate or at a party,” Walker said, “when it’s locked up in a tight bear hug with that candidate or party.”
Well, see, I agree with that also. I don’t think that political partisanship by a church is conducive to its primary mission of spreading the Gospel, or to it’s ministry as an advocate for justice.
Here’s what I think: I just don’t know what to think about this.
Pastors Urged to Preach About Politics, in Hopes of Toppling IRS Ban - America’s Election HQ
I sort of agree with that. The government should have nothing to say about what emanates from the pulpit.
I think that this must be the case.
In many countries, the Christian churches have been a major force standing up against totalitarianism, often just by risking their lives criticizing government actions.
I think that freedom of speech at the pulpit is probably far more important than the second amendment.
I don’t think that political partisanship by a church is conducive to its primary mission of spreading the Gospel, or to it’s ministry as an advocate for justice.
Yeah. For example, a relative of mine goes to an ultra-liberal church. I’ve been to mass there a number of times, and while they do seem generally nice, the grotesque caricatures of right-wingers in some of their more political sermons are very insulting. Basically, they make it pretty clear that I am not welcome there. So, f*** ‘em.
Overturn it. Let them say what they want. And then make them pay taxes like everybody else.
Between the church and the academy, something like 40% of my city (Providence) is tax exempt. Guess who makes up the difference?
I don’t think it is necessary to tax churches. Every bit of income my church receives is from income that has already been taxed. And let me assure you that the deduction I get for ‘charitable contributions’ is a fraction of what I give. On the other hand, Christian churches have no business preaching politics from the pulpit. In fact, if Christian and Lutheran churches did a better job of preaching what they are supposed to this world would be a better place.
Matthew 22:34-40 (King James Version)
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Brewfan, music to my ears! All my income comes from other folks’ previously taxed money, too.
Overturn it. The more free speech, the better.
Then let’s see how long it takes before some real big-time pastor is accused of delivering his flock to some politician for personal gain.
I think that freedom of speech at the pulpit is probably far more important than the second amendment.
I think quite a few people in other countries might disagree.
You’re right. It’s difficult to sort things out. Issues that count as “moral” in the pulpit can also count as “political” in another context. The Civil Rights movement was a movement led by church people, organized from within churches, and staffed by many church people. Preachers spoke out against segregation from the pulpit. So, as long as they didn’t endorse candidates, it was kosher with the IRS? What about the abolitionist movement (although it went on long before the current rules)? No matter what your religion, you want to speak publicly about things that matter. If you denounce some politicians for their positions about policy related to poverty, and praise others whose policies you like, will the IRS be knocking on your door, or worse, infiltrating meetings?
You’re also correct to worry about churches becoming unaccountable fronts for political activity. My general feeling is the state should cut all churches and religious groups a great deal of slack, and policies about religion and politics should be very explicit about will trigger IRS attention, and also enforced consistently in ways which don’t themselves become politically partisan. Government should protect first amendment rights of religion, speech, assembly and petition. Any intrusion into those areas should be for narrowly defined and explicitly stated reasons.
Don’t know if that makes anything clearer, but that’s my two cents worth.
Victor Kulkosky
http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com
Brewfan, music to my ears! All my income comes from other folks’ previously taxed money, too.
Really? You don’t have any business customers? In any event as you are a for-profit enterprise so I think there is a wee bit of difference, no? Did you know that everybody at a church who collects a salary pays taxes on it, clergy included? Its just the organization that gets the benefit of tax free status. Like all non-profit organizations, not just churches.
Overturn it. The more free speech, the better.
This we agree on.
Then let’s see how long it takes before some real big-time pastor is accused of delivering his flock to some politician for personal gain.
I’m not sure what you mean by this; it seems pretty far-fetched. I’m sure you weren’t suggesting that I vote the way my pastor wants me to. Were you?
I’m sure you weren’t suggesting that I vote the way my pastor wants me to.
Nope. But that’s you. I don’t want Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. John Hagee endorsing candidates from the pulpit. Both are capable of delivering gullible constituencies. It’s a corrupting temptation for the pastor and the church, and it’s bad politics.
Still, I have a problem with the government regulating anything that is said from the pulpit. This is not an easy issue.
I’m sure you weren’t suggesting that I vote the way my pastor wants me to.
Nope. And I’d bet that a lot of your friends and co-parishioners were as politically savvy as you. You’d not only be impervious to such appeals, you’d be disgusted by them.
But the majority of people in this country are woefully apolitical. You don’t think there’s a decent proportion of
StupidSwing Voters in other congregations that can’t be swayed one way or another by their clergy?Its far-fetched to me because there simply aren’t enough votes to be had by ‘delivering’ a congregation to a politician. How much could a corrupt pastor expect to receive to deliver, on the high end of the scale, 1,000 votes (only 1 in 10 churches in this country have more than 1,000 adult members; 75 percent have congregations less then 100)? Besides, its perfectly legal for churches to produce and provide voter guides; the effect is the same.
My point is that chipping away at our inalienable right of free political speech is much, much worse then the ‘threat’ posed by politics being preached from the pulpit. As I stated it above, I oppose the notion on theological grounds, but it shouldn’t be ‘illegal’.
change they will.
Any time somebody is given a break on paying taxes other people have to pick up the shortfall.
At the end of each financial year let religious groups claim back on their tax return for charitable acts, just like any other entity or person.
Being a recipient of one’s own charity is not charity, so that would smarten up the parasites who can write-off their limos and lear jets while their “parishioners” struggle to find their tithes.
Religious bodies should welcome this too, because if they truly are charitable that will be reflected in their rebate. If they are a front to rip folk off then they will pay for the privilege or evade and be treated like the crooks they will have shown themselves to be.
So pay your taxes like everyone else and then do what you want.
Taxing you in no way lessens your freedom to speak it just means that others don’t have to pay you a speaker’s fee that we have no say about.
I don’t want Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. John Hagee endorsing candidates from the pulpit. Both are capable of delivering gullible constituencies.
They already do.
For legal reasons, they may avoid explicitly saying the candidates’ names, but the result is the same.
Any time somebody is given a break on paying taxes other people have to pick up the shortfall.
Not true. Tax cuts, for example, have been proven over and over to generate more tax revenue then that which has been lost through the reduction in taxes. Where does that tax exempt money the churches enjoy go? Back into the economy, which ultimately generates more tax revenue from other sources.
At the end of each financial year let religious groups claim back on their tax return for charitable acts, just like any other entity or person.
Does this hold true for the American Lung Association, or the Muscular Dystrophy Association in your opinion? They also participate in political activism so should we take away their tax exempt status?
Taxing you in no way lessens your freedom to speak
The threat of it certainly does!
it just means that others don’t have to pay you a speaker’s fee that we have no say about.
A conclusion based on a flawed premise; I have nothing else to add.
it just means that others don’t have to pay you a speaker’s fee that we have no say about.
Erm, preachers actually do get paid for preaching, and they pay income taxes on the revenue.
Laura’s point is still valid. Every dollar that gets spent on anything has previously been taxed, and will subsequently get taxed. There’s no denying that churches (and schools and other charities) get preferential treatment when we put money in the offering plate and an otherwise taxable transfer gets ignored.
This gets to be a tricky issue when, for example, you look at the disparate treatment of not-for-profit hospitals, often with a religious connection, that compete directly with for-profit hospitals. It’s pretty difficult to see a real difference between them from a business perspective. A hospital is a big business operation either way, and the not-for-profit hospitals aren’t really doing much more as “charity” work than their for-profit competitors. The for-profit hospitals have been complaining about this for years.
Laura’s point is still valid. Every dollar that gets spent on anything has previously been taxed
I don’t think that was her point, but be that as it may, I should have been clearer when I said “Every bit of income my church receives is from income that has already been taxed”. I was trying to convey that my church receives none of its revenue from government sources (untaxed), unlike secular charities and schools who also enjoy an exemption from paying federal income taxes but have no such restrictions on political speech.
A hospital is a big business operation either way, and the not-for-profit hospitals aren’t really doing much more as “charity” work than their for-profit competitors.
Walk into St. Joseph’s hospital and tell them you are poor and have no insurance and see how you are treated. Then do the same at your local Humana hospital.
Also, the shareholders of St. Joseph’s are going to be a little miffed you blew their cover. No more dividends for them!
You don’t think there’s a decent proportion of Stupid Swing Voters in other congregations that can’t be swayed one way or another by their clergy?
There are. I sat down with my own pastor 4 months ago, who was a huge fan of Huck, and ran through the list of “are you aware of this crap?” stuff.
He was not. And he shut up about Huck. To his credit, he never ever pushed the huckster from the pulpit. But I do not doubt there were pastors who did.
Dear ‘Fray-ends’ Who and How we listen to the person in a “PULL-PIT”
is made up of too many things that we don’t know the draw cards’ faces.
This situation of RELIGION,( Changed in the past from Re-legion as in the man who had seven demons that were cast out by JESUS. The word seems to mean re-BOUND, a tethered to,to have made a new connection.), as to FAITH is a cunnundrum that hasn’t found level yet. In this time of issues interweaving through themselves our problem is, only, that of people not having the education and strength to make informed decisions.The “CHURCH” has ALWAYS been an INFLUENCE on every society since man-”kind” has gathered as a group. It has
a, seeming, genetic imprint on us all, no matter who’s name we invoke. Since before CATHOLICISM and JUDAIC business practices
the POLICIES of society have their rules and regulations may always
be intertwined.Visit the wp site RAVENSCAWL, there’s an article that
the FAITH-BASED are finding hard to digest. nice article this is what
we need to do FOR the generation of higher brainwaves.
D’Ellis/Mohandas Lighque
Michael, you have a new nickname?
It’s Spurwing, I tell you.
The real question is; what is the prupose of the church on the earth? As far as I can see, no where in the Bible is the church commanded to get candidates elected or to espouse the personal political views of the clergy from the pulpit. We are instead commanded to make disciples of all nations, pray for our leaders, submit to our leaders and be salt and light on the earth. That should keep us too busy to preach some candidates political agenda. Let the pastors preach God’s Word, and let everyone vote according to their own convictions as disciples of Christ.
Excellent point, PeregrinJoe.
PeregrinJoe was just agreeing with Omegetymon.
I think.
Thanks BrewFan.
Michael: I feel stupid, but I don’t really understand much of what Omergetymon was saying.
Peregrinjoe:
My #25 was intended as a joke about the incoherent rant at #22.
*sigh*
PeregrinJoe, what Michael was trying to say is that he agrees with your comment #23 but he didn’t want to admit to agreeing with BrewFan.
‘zat about right Brew?
How on earth does one pronounce “omegetymon”? What language is it from?
‘zat about right Brew?
Why ask Brewfan that question? He’ll be wrong.
Michael: Whew! I am glad you said that. I was assuming that I was just too stupid to understand what the man was trying to say! Thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry I meant to address that last comment to Michael AND Retired Geezer.
‘zat about right Brew?
Spot on! Slowly but surely we’re converting Michael to Christianity.
To all the questions about omegetymon ,go to wordpress.com.
He’s dyslexic,black AND…some mensa, barely finishing high school.
Grandson of a minister who’s part of the punishments handed down
for tresspasses. Ask me I’LL TELL YA’.
OMEG(A)=BEGINNING/ETYMON=ROOT, as in root words.Written on my
computer/ the GROQWERX.
It’s Cuffy, channeling Spurwing!
Gotta be.
He’s dyslexic,black AND…some mensa, barely finishing high school
Welcome Oliver Willis!