Churches defend their right to make political comments
We read:
"Dozens of pastors around the nation are challenging an Internal Revenue Service rule that anti-Christian activists often invoke when they want to silence the message of churches, according to the Alliance Defense Fund.
The organization has announced that more than 80 preachers are taking part in its second annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday this weekend. The pastors will preach Sunday sermons related to biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates or current government officials, exercising their constitutional right to free religious expression, the ADF said.
They will do so despite a "problematic" IRS rule that activists use when they want to silence the message of Christians, the ADF said. "Pastors have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley explained.
"ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. On the contrary, the whole point is that churches should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to talk about. The IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church's tax-exempt status. We need the government to get out of the pulpit," he said.
The censorship for church pastors has been in place since the Johnson Amendment was added to the Federal Tax Code in 1954. However, enforcement has been spotty and the results have been vague, even though critics of Christian churches contend it limits what they can say from the pulpit.
The IRS has repeatedly launched investigations of churches based on allegations from organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, whose officials have taken advantage of the vagueness to report church "offenses."
Source
24 comments:
Isn't it odd that far-Left organizations are never investigated? Maybe it's just a coincidence? ;)
Have you noticed how, since Odumbo was elected, we're starting to look more and more like the Berlin of 1939? Maybe that too is a coincidence?
Anon 1:25:
Hey, what's with the name calling? Huh?
Yet the far left has no problem when left-wing churches preach for civil rights, against gun control, the environment, etc.
Yet the far left has no problem when left-wing churches preach for civil rights, against gun control, the environment, etc.
The Johnson Amendment does not cover issues, only candidates. The issues you raise are fair game from the pulpit.
"The Johnson Amendment does not cover issues, only candidates. The issues you raise are fair game from the pulpit."
---So you're saying a priest can say "abortion is a sin" but he can't say "don't vote for X candidate because he's pro-abortion?"
I think free speech should allow the pastors to preach anything they want, why put limits on free speech?
You can preach anything you want in your church. Just give up your 501c3 status. As soon as you don't get a tax free ride, you are free to enjoy the rights of free expression all us taxpayers enjoy. Till then get the fuck outta politics. And that goes for ALL the 501c3's, not just churches.
---So you're saying a priest can say "abortion is a sin" but he can't say "don't vote for X candidate because he's pro-abortion?"
I'm not saying it, the law is. Feel free to read it for yourself.
I think free speech should allow the pastors to preach anything they want, why put limits on free speech?
First, this is not truly a limit on "free speech" in that the government is not saying that the pastor can't say something. Secondly, what the government is saying is that when a pastor or church leaves the realm of a church and goes into the realm of advocacy for a political candidate, they are subject to the same tax laws as groups that advocate a political candidate.
There are two conflicting ideas here. The conflict is "when does a church with religious freedoms and no taxes become an advocate for a political candidate and therefore now have a tax burden?"
I understand the argument from the government, but given the founding history of this county where churches were a driving force in advancing separation from England, and that force included attacking individual political figures such as King George, governors, etc, I don't think the law is correct either.
It is interesting to note that Johnson proposed this amendment because he was being savaged by some tax-exempt groups campaigning against his re-election. He proposed the amendment and the Congress went along with him. Johnson always claimed that he never intended the amendment to be used against, for or on churches, but it has been.
Frankly, in that this conference will have speakers from churches that will give political speeches aimed at candidates, I wonder if part of the reason for the conference is to set up a court challenge to the law.
Anonymous 2:23 said...
"Hey, what's with the name calling? Huh?"
You mean his name is not Odumbo?
QUOTABLE QUOTES
"Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority."
-– Ayn Rand
Anon 7:19,
"The Johnson Amendment does not cover issues, only candidates. The issues you raise are fair game from the pulpit."
The left has candidates giving campaign speeches from some of their pulpits. Why don't we hear about them being prosecuted? Because it's not happening.
Anon 1:08,
"As soon as you don't get a tax free ride, you are free to enjoy the rights of free expression all us taxpayers enjoy."
The whole point of churches getting a tax exemption is the First Amendment:
"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."
The argument is that requiring churches to pay taxes limits their ability to freely exercise their religion. Furthermore, some of those taxes can be used to undermine what the churches teach. For example, imagine a pacifist church having to pay taxes which fund the military. Or just about any mainstream church's taxes going to Planned Parenthood.
There are two other important points to remember:
1. The Johnson Amendment was created explicitly to stifle the churches' First Amendment rights. Taxing only certain speech which someone doesn't like is definitely the government "abridging the freedom of speech".
2. It was teachings from church pulpits which made it possible for this country to gain our freedom from the tyranny of King George.
My understanding of the issue is this:
The definition of charitable purposes dates back to the preamble to the Statute of Queen Elizabeth (1601) and fall broadly under 4 headings:
1. The relief of poverty
2. The advancement of education
3. The advancement of religion, and
4. other purposes beneficial to the community (see IRC v Pemsel).
If the activities of the organisation satisfy one of these requirements (and the public benefit requirements) then it is charitable and exempt from taxation. Obviously there have been modifications to this broad test but this still underlies the fundamental reasoning. For this basic reason churches' normal activities are (and have long been) classified as charitable.
When those activities start to stray from the basic activities one expects from churches then you start to enter a grey area.
However, it is a big problem to ask a court to determine whether a particular message crosses the line from religion into something else. Is this job we or the courts would want?
Of course, religion has alway been political. To attempt to silence churches on political issues under threat of loss of tax exempt status is to curtail both their religious and political rights.
"First, this is not truly a limit on "free speech" in that the government is not saying that the pastor can't say something. Secondly, what the government is saying is that when a pastor or church leaves the realm of a church and goes into the realm of advocacy for a political candidate, they are subject to the same tax laws as groups that advocate a political candidate."
---So when a non-profit organization like Greenpeace enters realm of political advocacy, how come they don't lose their tax status? You see, the law makes no sense, if you're religious you're subjected to different rules than if you're secular. While this may be legal, it violates the spirit of free speech.
In fact, if we applied that church fairly we can assume that every African-American church would lose their tax status since they all advocated for Obama.
Use the name,
The left has candidates giving campaign speeches from some of their pulpits. Why don't we hear about them being prosecuted? Because it's not happening.
Because the candidate doesn't represent the church. That's the distinction the IRS makes. I think it is a distinction without a difference, but it is there.
---So when a non-profit organization like Greenpeace enters realm of political advocacy, how come they don't lose their tax status?
What part of "candidate" or "cause" don't you understand? The law deals with politically advancing a candidate not an issue.
In fact, if we applied that church fairly we can assume that every African-American church would lose their tax status since they all advocated for Obama.
Proof please.
Happy Blasphemy Day, everyone!
What about the REV. Al Sharptongue and the REV Je$$e Jackass? Their "churches" enjoy tax-free exemptions while the only thing they preach is radical, left-wing politics. And neither has an actual "church".
"What part of "candidate" or "cause" don't you understand? The law deals with politically advancing a candidate not an issue."
---You don't think Jeremiah Wright supported Obama throughout his career? Sure, pastors are very careful not to say "vote for Obama" but they'll say everything else to get that message across.
Religion has always played a part in politics, politicians often visit churches and give speeches there. A church cannot advance an issue without advancing a candidate, think about it, what good is telling your congregation to vote pro-choice if they vote for the pro-life candidate? In a representative democracy like ours it matters who gets elected since they are going to be making decisions for the rest of us. Furthermore, if Greenpeace can advance a candidate I don't see why a church can't do it.
"Proof please."
---2:36 AM provided your proof.
---You don't think Jeremiah Wright supported Obama throughout his career? Sure, pastors are very careful not to say "vote for Obama" but they'll say everything else to get that message across.
Do you have any evidence that Wright supported Obama from the pulpit?
Religion has always played a part in politics, politicians often visit churches and give speeches there.
Your point?
A church cannot advance an issue without advancing a candidate,
Actually they can, and do.
---2:36 AM provided your proof.
Neither Sharpton or Jackson lead or are pastors of any church.
However, you postulated that "that every African-American church would lose their tax status since they all advocated for Obama."
Even assuming that Sharpton and Jackson had churches (which they don't) how does that prove that all African American churches supported Obama?
Once again, please supply some proof for your outlandish statement.
Ahem, his name is zerObama.
Sharpton and Jackson have tax free status.
as did ACORN and they're all partisan pro zerObama.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. The Church should not be under the power of the taxman.
In the days goneby many looked at the church as a 'higher entity' and therefore not taxable by a lower entity, the state.
president baroke odamno.
cool!
Post a Comment