Politics from the Pulpit

[TacticalEvilDan]

Encouraging religious institutions to remain politically neutral is key to First Amendment protections. If any one religious group, acting as a religious group, becomes politically powerful then the result is that they get courted and schmoozed and de facto established.

If a group of people wants to be politically active, I'm all for it no matter what the cause. I just want them to organize as a political group and be regulated accordingly.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Do you think Pelosi has crossed a line here?

She can ask religious leaders to do anything she wants.

I think it's foolish and disingenuous of her to ask for political activity, but if the people of her district like that kind of representation then there's nothing anyone else can do.

 

[RightinNYC]

Probably a lot.

You'd (speaking generically, here) have to ask yourself what sort of phonies/a-holes are running the church and providing these services if they're willing to risk it all to break the law and play politics.

The more they're willing to risk, the quicker you should join a new church.

First, there's not really a risk, as noted above.

Second, I find it a bit amusing that you assume that said church leaders would be "phonies/a-holes." Imagine that a church believed strongly in social justice and supported policies that would put an end to war and provide food and shelter for all the hungry and homeless. If the pastor of that church urged his congregation to do everything possible to support people who would make that happen, would you call him a "phony" or an asshole?

Why can other non-profit organizations endorse political candidates and not churches? I'm personally against churches endorsing a candidate, but I think they should have the right to do it like other non-profits.

Churches are treated exactly like other 501c3s. The reason why churches and other 501c3's can't endorse political candidates has nothing to do with separation of church and state, contrary to what Glinda claimed. It goes back to the tax act of 1954 (which created the ban on direct intervention), the revenue act of 1934 (which created the "substantial part" test), and treasury regulations from 1919 (which excluded groups formed for the express purpose of disseminating political propaganda). The nonprofits that can take more active roles in political campaigns are usually organized under different sections of the tax code and receive different benefits.

 

[cpwill]

As documented above, the IRS (the "state") says otherwise.

it certainly does not, it simply defines where it shall judge an organization to be tax-exempt or not.

think pastors shouldn't comment on politics?

tell it to Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[CriticalThought]

tell it to Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

He commented on the issues, he didn't endorse candidates.

 

[RosieS]

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did his politics during civil rights marches, on the bridge into Selma, from jail (the famous Letter from the Birmingham Jail), in front of the Lincoln Memorial, and lastly, at a union hall of striking Memphis workers. All of which are public, not pulpits.

Regards from Rosie

 

[RightinNYC]

He commented on the issues, he didn't endorse candidates.

Which of course highlights the ridiculousness of the argument that the FEC/IRS can actually define and police "political" speech.

 

[Cephus]

2. The more taxes churches have to pay, the less they have available for charity and outreach programs. Churches in my home town run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, crisis family shelters for abused women/children, food banks for the poor, after-school programs for 'at risk' children, etc etc etc. How much of that would be lost?

I don't think churches should get tax-exempt status just because they're churches. If they're doing charitable work, they should be able to qualify under regular charity statutes and still get their tax exemption, but they have to prove they're actually doing something charitable with their money and they have to open their books like all other charities have to. Most churches refuse to do that, therefore, they shouldn't get extemptions for it.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't think churches should get tax-exempt status just because they're churches. If they're doing charitable work, they should be able to qualify under regular charity statutes and still get their tax exemption, but they have to prove they're actually doing something charitable with their money and they have to open their books like all other charities have to. Most churches refuse to do that, therefore, they shouldn't get extemptions for it.

Churches are required to file 990 forms and maintain comprehensive records just like every other 501c3. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Churches are automatically considered "charitable" because they fall directly within the definition that the IRS uses:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

 

[mac]

Because our Constitution mandates the separation of church and state.

The separation of Church and State makes illegal State endorsement of religion, state censorship of religion, or favoritism towards a specific religion. It does not prohibit Churches or religions from supporting political candidates or issues.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Iowa pastor preaches politics to oust 3 justices who backed gay marriage - USATODAY.com

Most people couldn't imagine that the Supreme Court would give freedom of speech rights to corporations and unions so they could spend without limits endorsing candidates. How long do you think before churches are telling you who to vote for and against?

I don't really agree with our political interference over church-issues.

In fact, I find the current setup to be unconstitutional.

My Dad is a minister and pays over $3,000 out of pocket for taxes every year because, as a minister, eventhough his pay is cut from the church district and he is employed *by* them - he's considered self-employed. Pays taxes throughout the year and ALWAYS owes a buttload anyway.

I think with that $3,000 extra they gleam from him he should have the right to yammer on about how much he hates Bush if he wants.

 

[CriticalThought]

I don't really agree with our political interference over church-issues.

In fact, I find the current setup to be unconstitutional.

What part of the Constitution do you think it violates?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What part of the Constitution do you think it violates?

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."

 

[CriticalThought]

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."

And how does granting them a tax exemption prohibit their free exercise of religion?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

And how does granting them a tax exemption prohibit their free exercise of religion?

In what ways are they tax-exempt? Tax exemption applies to the church as a whole and only *if* They're being granted non-profit tax-exemption status in exchange for 'don't preach from the pulpit' and other things that they must adhere to.

Yet the individual ministers and other employees all *pay their taxes* - they, individually, are not exempt from taxation. Yet they can't voice their opinions in various situations (like during a sermon).

Which is BS

At no point should our government have the means to intercede - even if it's in exchange for something - the right to freely practice and free speech shouldn't *have* to be optional - it should *always* just be.

But at the same time they'll use churches for voting purposes . . .it's hypocritical.

 

[The Baron]

“The legislature was just kind enough to exempt churches if they stay out of politics.” - Kernal Sanders

Uh, no.

Lyndon Johnson slipped a provision into a bill to keep preachers from endorsing candidates because a preacher from his senate district endorsed his opponent during an election.

It was a petty and immature thing to do and deprives preachers from their Constitutional right of free speech.

“They don’t have a constitutional right to tax exempt status. That’s a privilage granted to him by law so long as he hold up his side” - Kernal Sanders

“Exactly. I am all about freedom of religion and leaving churches alone. But I am also all about churches leaving politics alone, too. If this church can't play by the rules, strip them of their TE status and tax them to high heaven. “ - jallman

“If you view the federal income tax exemption for charities as a subsidy to the preferred organizations, then the argument for permitting government regulation is stronger. If you think of the income tax exemption in a different way, that may make the argument weaker.” - RightinNYC

“Privilege”? “Subsidy”? To believe this you would have to believe that the state owns your money and allows you the “privilege” to keep it. The money that churches are not taxed is their money and not the governments. They are not the beneficiary of any “privilege” or “subsidy” for simply keeping what rightfully belongs to them!

“Do you feel the same regarding the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (The President's home church)?” - FluffyNinja

Good-freakin'-point! While certainly it is politically incorrect and insensitive to point out, black churches routinely endorse candidates with little fear of reprisal. I guess any attempt to stifle their free-speech would be met with charges of racism.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” - Goshin

You are not just right…you’re damn right!

“You'd (speaking generically, here) have to ask yourself what sort of phonies/a-holes are running the church and providing these services if they're willing to risk it all to break the law and play politics.” - Glinda

You mean their Constitutional right to free speech? Our Founding Fathers risked everything for this right to “play politics”. Do you suppose our Founding Fathers were "phonies / a-holes" for risking everything for freedom?

Do you really believe that?

“Removal of a TE does not in any way stifle speech.

I pay taxes, and yet somehow I manage to make ends meet and vent my spleen.” - TacticalEvilDan

And your not comparing “apples to oranges”. Far too many churches struggle just to keep the lights on and will not risk raising the ire of the IRS to practice their right to free speech.

“Having your organization talk about politics on tax exempt real estate isn't freedom of speech. If they wanna do it, let them do it on the street, or in a gov't. meeting, like everyone else does. Then the gov't is prohibited from restricting it...when it's in the open.” - RosieS

Sermons aren’t conducted out "in the open"???

Hello???

“Encouraging religious institutions to remain politically neutral is key to First Amendment protections. If any one religious group, acting as a religious group, becomes politically powerful then the result is that they get courted and schmoozed and de facto established.” - TacticalEvilDan

This has got to be one of the most outrageous, unsubstantiated, ludicrous and fundamentally-stupid comments I’ve ever read in this forum.

Every group in this country has the freedom to spout-off their version of “morality” without consequence with the notable exception of churches.

Churches had the right to speak freely until 1954 and at no time was the Republic ever threatened.

Stupid.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Everyone chimes that the 1st Amendment is the most important amendment, etc - but then we see that the cost of those liberties has a definable price at which people deem it's actually *not that important*

And your not comparing “apples to oranges”. Far too many churches struggle just to keep the lights on and will not risk raising the ire of the IRS to practice their right to free speech.

Funny, though - because Churches get money from their parishioners in the means of tithes which my Dad pushed exhaustively when I was a kid (over such things as my allowance) - and through their businesses (storefronts, etc) . . . so if a church has the means to bring in more money at will and by means of pressure then why do they have to 'lean on the government' for exemption?

I'm against the exemption - I think it should be dissolved and churches taxed like every other business. . . and everyone permitted free-speech.

 

[RosieS]

Everyone chimes that the 1st Amendment is the most important amendment, etc - but then we see that the cost of those liberties has a definable price at which people deem it's actually *not that important*

Funny, though - because Churches get money from their parishioners in the means of tithes which my Dad pushed exhaustively when I was a kid (over such things as my allowance) - and through their businesses (storefronts, etc) . . . so if a church has the means to bring in more money at will and by means of pressure then why do they have to 'lean on the government' for exemption?

I'm against the exemption - I think it should be dissolved and churches taxed like every other business. . . and everyone permitted free-speech.

I agree. If the property they are standing on gets fully taxed just like the property I'm sitting on is, then they can say what they wish from their paid for pulpit. This is the point teh Baron refuses to recognize above.

If you're a property owner with paid up taxes you get to control what is said and not said on your property. Conversely, it should be if not, not.

I personally think the major and most populous denoninations (megchurches) oughta pay BACK taxes, but that's just me.

Regards from Rosie

 

[tryreading]

I don't think anyone should be subject to a tax simply for speaking about political issues... including church officials.

(

But here's the thing: churches want this TE status, and are allowed it by government if they follow certain rules. This is true of any entity which receives anything from government.

If you want the money, you must follow the rules.

A lot of people say there is no separation of church and state, or that the wall is permeable from the religious side only. But the truth is if government grants you anything, you are not protected as a church from governmental rules, and the state having some control over your church.

 

[tryreading]

Lyndon Johnson slipped a provision into a bill to keep preachers from endorsing candidates because a preacher from his senate district endorsed his opponent during an election.

It was a petty and immature thing to do and deprives preachers from their Constitutional right of free speech.

Yes, Johnson did want said law. But if you don't want to follow the law, don't take the money.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

“Encouraging religious institutions to remain politically neutral is key to First Amendment protections. If any one religious group, acting as a religious group, becomes politically powerful then the result is that they get courted and schmoozed and de facto established.” - TacticalEvilDan

This has got to be one of the most outrageous, unsubstantiated, ludicrous and fundamentally-stupid comments I’ve ever read in this forum.

Every group in this country has the freedom to spout-off their version of “morality” without consequence with the notable exception of churches.

Churches had the right to speak freely until 1954 and at no time was the Republic ever threatened.

Stupid.

Abrasive, alarmist, and dismissive, all without addressing anything I actually said.

Looks to me like you'll fit in well here with the other hacks. :lol:

 

[Patria Antiqua]

1. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

2. The more taxes churches have to pay, the less they have available for charity and outreach programs. Churches in my home town run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, crisis family shelters for abused women/children, food banks for the poor, after-school programs for 'at risk' children, etc etc etc. How much of that would be lost?

Churches are not special; they ought to pay the same taxes everyone else has to.

Nobody should get to play the faith card to exempt themselves from rules everyone else has to follow.

 

[The Baron]

“Yes, Johnson did want said law. But if you don't want to follow the law, don't take the money.” - tryreading

I got a better idea--let’s overturn the law for what it is…unconstitutional.

 

[The Baron]

“Abrasive, alarmist, and dismissive, all without addressing anything I actually said.” - TacticalEvilDan

Guess you must have missed the part where I said that “[c]hurches had the right to speak freely until 1954 and at no time was the Republic ever threatened” as evidence that your comment is “outrageous, unsubstantiated, ludicrous and fundamentally-stupid”

 

[tryreading]

I don't really agree with our political interference over church-issues.

In fact, I find the current setup to be unconstitutional.

My Dad is a minister and pays over $3,000 out of pocket for taxes every year because, as a minister, eventhough his pay is cut from the church district and he is employed *by* them - he's considered self-employed. Pays taxes throughout the year and ALWAYS owes a buttload anyway.

I think with that $3,000 extra they gleam from him he should have the right to yammer on about how much he hates Bush if he wants.

So? Everybody who makes an income has to pay income taxes and SE tax if self employed. And if you don't pay in the proper amount through the year, you have to make up for the remainder at the end of the year.

There's no 'gleening' from him. Why shouldn't he pay income tax? Everybody else does.