Post by: Desertdog on September 29, 2008, 05:56:55 AM
33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802365_pf.html
CROWN POINT, Ind., Sept. 28 -- Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of "severe moral schizophrenia."
The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee's positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures." Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates' views but stopped short of endorsing Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.
Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.
The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, "The point that the IRS says you can't do it, I'm saying you're wrong."
The campaign, organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal consortium based in Arizona, has gotten the attention of the Internal Revenue Service. The agency, alerted by opponents, pledged to "monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."
Each campaign season brings allegations that a member of the clergy has crossed a line set out in a 1954 amendment to the tax code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."
This time, the church action is concerted. Yet while the ministers say the rules stifle religious expression, their opponents contend that the tax laws are essential to protect the separation of church and state. They say political speech should not be supported by a tax break for the churches or the worshipers who are contributing to a political cause.
In an open letter Saturday, a United Church of Christ minister, the Rev. Eric Williams, warned that many members of the clergy are "exchanging their historic religious authority for a fleeting promise of political power," to the detriment of their churches.
"The role of the church -- of congregation, synagogue, temple and mosque -- and of its religious leaders is to stand apart from government, to prophetically speak truth to power," Williams wrote, "and to encourage a national dialogue that transcends the divisiveness of electoral politics and preserves for every citizen our 'first liberty.' "
In the modern red-brick Living Stones Church in Crown Point, a town of 28,000 residents 50 miles southeast of Chicago, Johnson explained why he thinks a minister should dispense political advice. He then laid out his view of the positions of Obama and McCain on abortion and same-sex marriage, which he called two issues "that transcend all others."
"We want people when you prick them, they bleed the word of God," Johnson said.
Johnson said ministers have a responsibility to guide their flocks in worldly matters, including politics, calling the dichotomy between the secular and the sacred a myth: "The issue is not 'Are we legislating morality?' This issue is 'Whose morality are we legislating?' "
Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own.
The congregation greeted Johnson's reasoning and his criticism of Obama with applause.
"When things of the world don't line up with Scripture," said Ed Kraus, 61, who executes reverse mortgages for a living, "he has a right to say they don't."
Ruth Stiener went a step further. "He has a duty," she said. "Heaven forbid that that is ever taken away from our pastors."
Robert Tuttle, law professor at George Washington University, is skeptical that the Alliance Defense Fund project will result in a new judicial interpretation of the 1954 law. "The only way this gets into a court is if the IRS, number one, decides to enforce and the enforcement mechanism they choose actually causes an injury to a church," said Tuttle, who studies the intersection of law and religion. "That's not something that happens often in campaign activity."
More than 180 members of the clergy have signed a pledge from the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington-based group that seeks to separate faith and politics, agreeing not to endorse a candidate on behalf of their house of worship.
"I have no objections to clergy taking off their robes and walking out the door of their church, synagogue or mosque and immersing themselves in political campaigns," said Rabbi Jack Moline of Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, chairman of the Interfaith Alliance board. "But a sanctuary should not be a place of political agitation on behalf of a candidate. On behalf of issues, yes. Of candidates, no."
Moline added: "Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is saying, 'This is what our God says should be the government of the country.' I think that is a nightmare scenario for a country that introduced the Bill of Rights to humanity."
As for Johnson's criticism of Obama, the Illinois Democrat supports the right to choose abortion. He opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions for gay couples.
"Senator Obama is a committed Christian and a man of deep faith," said Joshua DuBois, Obama's national religious affairs director. "And the notion that there is only one way to address issues like abortion, or that people of faith cannot support full civil rights for all Americans, is absurd."
Staff writer Jacqueline L. Salmon in Washington contributed to this report.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 29, 2008, 06:06:00 AM
And nothing happens against them.
Post by: Desertdog on September 29, 2008, 06:12:38 AM
Quote
Well, certain "preachers" endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit. This happens all the time.
And nothing happens against them.
AME Church even passed a collection plate for Rev. Jackson when he ran for president. Nothing from IRS, selective enforcement I guess.
And nothing happens against them.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 29, 2008, 06:18:07 AM
Quote
Well, certain "preachers" endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit. This happens all the time.
And nothing happens against them.
AME Church even passed a collection plate for Rev. Jackson when he ran for president. Nothing from IRS, selective enforcement I guess.And nothing happens against them.
Because enforcing that against an AME church would be "racist".
Post by: ronnyreagan on September 29, 2008, 06:23:37 AM
Well, certain "preachers" endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit. This happens all the time.
And nothing happens against them.
And nothing happens against them.
OK, well something should happen against them then. If you've witnessed this then maybe you should be writing letters to the IRS. They should lose their tax-exempt status just as the churches in the article should. If you're going to argue with the law then do so, but just saying "the other side does it" is pretty lame.
It's also clearly stated that they are doing this specifically to get this law into court - and get it thrown out. If that happens "the other side" can do it just the same, and certain "preachers" will be able to (legally) endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 29, 2008, 06:32:06 AM
Well, certain "preachers" endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit. This happens all the time.
And nothing happens against them.
And nothing happens against them.
OK, well something should happen against them then. If you've witnessed this then maybe you should be writing letters to the IRS. They should lose their tax-exempt status just as the churches in the article should. If you're going to argue with the law then do so, but just saying "the other side does it" is pretty lame.
It's also clearly stated that they are doing this specifically to get this law into court - and get it thrown out. If that happens "the other side" can do it just the same, and certain "preachers" will be able to (legally) endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit.
You act like something would happen. How naive.
These preachers I speak of are of a certain, protected class. Nothing would happen to them no matter what I would do.
I am not saying that I agree that these churches (the ones mentioned in the article) should be able to do this. I am merely saying that a preacher can get away with it if he is of a certain race and no one is going to try to stop him.
Post by: stevelyn on September 29, 2008, 08:50:51 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on September 29, 2008, 09:11:06 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 29, 2008, 09:22:45 AM
Quote
"When things of the world don't line up with Scripture," said Ed Kraus, 61, who executes reverse mortgages for a living, "he has a right to say they don't."
This seems odd to specify, they didn't note the employment of the lady quoted just after him.
My tinfoil hat thought?
"Ooh look, he does reverse mortgages, those are by definition evil, therefore see what a hypocrite he is."
Personally, I'd rather pastors discussed issues and exhorted their congregations to check out the candidates themselves, rather than creating a situation where the lazy-minded can just coast on "well my pastor told me this". As Christians, we aren't supposed to be blindly following our clergy, they are teachers, not rulers.
Post by: Nitrogen on September 29, 2008, 09:25:59 AM
That is perfectly fine with me.
Post by: Waitone on September 29, 2008, 09:49:25 AM
I JUST WANT THE FREAKIN' GOVERNMENT TO PICK ONE AND ENFORCE IT EQUALLY. What we have now is selective enforcement based on race.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 29, 2008, 09:54:30 AM
Post by: roo_ster on September 29, 2008, 11:28:12 AM
I don't really care what the IRS // gov does. I'm good with either approach.
I JUST WANT THE FREAKIN' GOVERNMENT TO PICK ONE AND ENFORCE IT EQUALLY. What we have now is selective enforcement based on race.
I JUST WANT THE FREAKIN' GOVERNMENT TO PICK ONE AND ENFORCE IT EQUALLY. What we have now is selective enforcement based on race.
Ditto.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2008, 12:21:31 PM
It works both ways. I'm all for pulling the tax exempt status for all churches and religious organization. They're getting a free ride based on ancient superstitions.
Call me crazy, but I thought not-for-profit or non-profit organizations did not usually pay taxes. You're saying churches should be treated differently?
Post by: ilbob on September 29, 2008, 12:28:51 PM
Post by: ArmedBear on September 29, 2008, 01:25:47 PM
Quote
Call me crazy, but I thought not-for-profit or non-profit organizations did not usually pay taxes. You're saying churches should be treated differently?
It's my understanding that they ARE treated differently, in that it's easier to get and keep tax-exempt status as a church than as another nonprofit.
On the one hand, that means that a little church in the country, or a fledgling fellowship, or whatever, doesn't have to hire lawyers and accountants to get nonprofit status. On the other hand, I can't help thinking it violates the First Amendment, since it's a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
Of course, laws governing political speech, e.g. campaign finance laws, aren't exactly square with the First Amendment, either.
Ah, the joys of a "living constitution."
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2008, 01:32:43 PM
Post by: ArmedBear on September 29, 2008, 01:41:40 PM
However, in order to grant tax-exempt status, the FedGov through the IRS has to establish what is and isn't a religion. Otherwise, my house could be a church, I could be a minister, etc. While many religious groups fit into the definition, the fact that the definition exists is a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
Furthermore, if I have to pay property taxes because of some supposed benefits I get from the state/county/city, and a church doesn't but receives the same benefits, I am being taxed to pay for it. The roads that lead to my house, the sewer pipes, the garbage dump, fire department, law enforcement, etc. all benefit the church as well as the homeowner who has to pay for them.
I'm not trying to make a strong argument in favor of taxing churches, just saying that things aren't so simple.
And again, I'm not big on speech restrictions in the name of "fair campaigns", either.
Post by: ronnyreagan on September 29, 2008, 02:53:12 PM
a preacher can get away with it if he is of a certain race and no one is going to try to stop him.
Black churches routinely violate this rule. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
What we have now is selective enforcement based on race.
The article in the original post made no mention of race. What is with the obsession with race in this thread?? Maybe it's because I don't attend black churches very often, but I don't get where this is coming from - anyone point me to references?
Post by: jrfoxx on September 29, 2008, 03:02:02 PM
Post by: Waitone on September 29, 2008, 03:20:32 PM
Quote
What is with the obsession with race in this thread??
Not obsession just 40+ years watching the deterioration of the civil rights movement from something good and noble to race baiting hucksterism. The reason race was mentioned is because the phenomenon of church endorsement of presidential candidates is virtually an exclusive feature of predominately churches. 100%? no but really really high. By and large it was a phenomenon ignored by government in general and the IRS in particular for fear of the obvious race baiting. The internet has completely changed how news is delivered. BI (before internet) new was served up for a half hour in the early evening. We saw only what our betters wanted us to see. Same with papers. The internet ripped the soda straw from our hands and let everyone see the scope of the problem. And what we saw is clearly unequal treatment before the law of one demographic group over a different demographic group. People are simply no longer willing to tolerate it, hence the reaction you see.
Post by: Green Lantern on September 29, 2008, 05:25:31 PM
It's also clearly stated that they are doing this specifically to get this law into court - and get it thrown out. If that happens "the other side" can do it just the same, and certain "preachers" will be able to (legally) endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit.
Since "the other side" already does it Illegally, that would suit me fine that "this side" would be able to as well.
Even if "the other side" DIDN'T do it....IMO, we should ALL be able to.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2008, 05:26:01 PM
Of course, there is no prohibition against candidates speaking in churches. As I understand it, the only restriction on tax-exempt churches is that speakers at the pulpit or on the platform may not endorse candidates by name. In my experience, preachers frequently say things like "I won't tell you who to vote for, but one of these candidates won't stand up for the rights of unborn children," etc. Which is perfectly legal and tax-exempt, so far as I know, and gets the point across.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 29, 2008, 07:44:10 PM
Well, yes.
However, in order to grant tax-exempt status, the FedGov through the IRS has to establish what is and isn't a religion. Otherwise, my house could be a church, I could be a minister, etc. While many religious groups fit into the definition, the fact that the definition exists is a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
Furthermore, if I have to pay property taxes because of some supposed benefits I get from the state/county/city, and a church doesn't but receives the same benefits, I am being taxed to pay for it. The roads that lead to my house, the sewer pipes, the garbage dump, fire department, law enforcement, etc. all benefit the church as well as the homeowner who has to pay for them.
I'm not trying to make a strong argument in favor of taxing churches, just saying that things aren't so simple.
And again, I'm not big on speech restrictions in the name of "fair campaigns", either.
However, in order to grant tax-exempt status, the FedGov through the IRS has to establish what is and isn't a religion. Otherwise, my house could be a church, I could be a minister, etc. While many religious groups fit into the definition, the fact that the definition exists is a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
Furthermore, if I have to pay property taxes because of some supposed benefits I get from the state/county/city, and a church doesn't but receives the same benefits, I am being taxed to pay for it. The roads that lead to my house, the sewer pipes, the garbage dump, fire department, law enforcement, etc. all benefit the church as well as the homeowner who has to pay for them.
I'm not trying to make a strong argument in favor of taxing churches, just saying that things aren't so simple.
And again, I'm not big on speech restrictions in the name of "fair campaigns", either.
Not disagreeing with you here.
A church is made up of individuals, every individual in the church already pays property taxes for those services, 7 days minus 1 hour a week. The church itself is not statistically increasing the usage of those services.
At a certain point, property taxes on any business / organization / association are charging folks multiple times for the same basic set of services.
Which is why I'm more in favor of user fees or sales taxes.
Post by: K Frame on September 29, 2008, 07:52:16 PM
Post by: buzz_knox on September 30, 2008, 03:29:40 AM
This is about tax status more than politics.
Maybe so, but the defense of selective prosecution will be right in the forefront.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 30, 2008, 04:23:55 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 30, 2008, 09:12:24 AM
This is about tax status more than politics.
Maybe so, but the defense of selective prosecution will be right in the forefront.
And at that point it becomes a legal issue.
Still not politics.
When there's a move on in Congress to repeal/modify the law, that's when it will be politics fodder.
Post by: buzz_knox on September 30, 2008, 09:22:09 AM
This is about tax status more than politics.
Maybe so, but the defense of selective prosecution will be right in the forefront.
And at that point it becomes a legal issue.
Still not politics.
When there's a move on in Congress to repeal/modify the law, that's when it will be politics fodder.
If they prosecute group X rather than group Y because it is politically expedient to do so, it's politics.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 11:12:14 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2008, 11:58:40 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 12:04:50 PM
The GIT was originally introduced not just as a measure to get money for government, but to be able to control various behaviors by having a system of tax breaks or extra taxes for them.
As the lobbyists got into it, a bizarre forest of exemptions of various kinds, loopholes, and rules was added, giving us the many-thousand-page tax codes of today.
PArt of it is tax exemptions for charities and churches (the government, of course, gets to decide what is a charity or a church).
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2008, 12:09:03 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 12:11:04 PM
Income tax refers to a tax on individual incomes, not on churches, businesses, etc. And I thought "graduated" referred to the different rates for different levels of income.
Income tax refers to the entire system of taxation of income, IIRC
And that's true, the word 'graduated' infers a graduation by income, however, as I said, one of the reasons for its original introduction was not just to collect money, but also to induce 'social equality'. LAter other purposes were added as the system became more complex.
A VAT, excise tax, or import tariff doesn't lend itself to this much complexity.