Pastors Question IRS over Preaching Politics

[cleanhippie]

WASHINGTON - As the 2012 presidential election approaches, the issue of preaching politics from the pulpit is resurfacing for many pastors.

Financial advisor Dan Busby said he often hears from church leaders who worry if they speak out on a political issue or candidate, the IRS will yank their tax exempt status.

Busby's Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability helps ministries properly manage their money.

"Pastors are prohibited from speaking out on their political preferences," he explained. "They would like to have the privilege of speaking their mind."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/May/Pastors-Question-Preaching-Politics-Despite-IRS-Rule/


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



The idea of being able to preach politics from the pulpit? They want it so bad they can taste it.

A simple solution, really, give up your tax-free status and preach politics all day long!

[WolverineDG]

1. Well, if they want the privilege, they can pay for it

Don't want to pay for it? Too bad, so sad.

dg

[HillbillyBob]

2. I say no more free ride for kristianists they need to pay taxes too

they interfere with MY religious freedoms at their peril.

[mysuzuki2]

3. They certainly have the right to speak out on

political issues and candidates. The first amendment gives them the right. No one can stop them. BUT, they do not have a right to tax exempt status. They are given that privilege in exchange for not engaging in political activity. It's their choice.

[skepticscott]

8. And those rules apply equally

to all tax-exempt organizations of that type, secular as well as religious, and are in place for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Right-wing churches like to paint themselves as being singled out by the IRS, but if they are, it's only because they are the most flagrant violators of those rules.

[okasha]

4. Preach politics, give up your 501(c)3.

Simple.

[struggle4progress]

5. It's simply not true that pastors are prohibited from talking about their own political preferences.

A church, if a tax-exempt entity, cannot endorse candidates. That doesn't prevent a pastor from expressing his personal views in every and every circumstance. Nor does it necessarily prevent the church from doing limited work on particular political issues

I probably know how the pastor of my church voted in some elections. As a person, he's entitled to say "I support so-and-so." He's not entitled to use his official position or other church resources to advocate for a particular candidate. It's my understanding that church resources could be used, from time to time, to lobby for particular issues, including particular bills in legislative bodies, provided that the total fraction of resources used remains small -- the same as for other nonprofits

[WolverineDG]

7. They can give their personal views, just not from the pulpit

I once worked for a non-profit, & we couldn't endorse or politic while on the job. But in our off-hours & on weekends we could & did. We were also allowed to have political bumper stickers on our personal vehicles. If we wanted to endorse someone, then we had to say "Wolverine DG, Individual" or something like that. We could not use the name of the non-profit in our endorsements.

So long as Pastor Bob isn't saying "I endorse" or "Vote for" from the pulpit or in his official capacity, he can be as political as he wants.

dg

[skepticscott]

9. The restrictions go even further

than that. Churches are allowed to distribute voter's guides that outline the various candidates' positions on different issues, but some churches have made up voter's guides so blatantly biased that they constituted a de facto endorsement to their members. Also not allowed in theory, though a bit more difficult to prove.

[struggle4progress]

6. CBN is part of Pat Robertson's empire, so the article spins rightwing

[humblebum]

10. The reason churches are tax exempt is more a constitutional issue

than a tax issue. If churches officially take sides on issues of government, they are violating the implied separation of C&S. If the government taxes them then the same is true.

So if you think the churches are overlly influential now, they would be SO much more so after being taxed.

[darkstar3]

11. How can a government tax on a church violate the implied separation of C&S?

That doesn't make sense if you stop to think about it. Why? Because a tax break given to an organization simply on the basis of religious affiliation is actually a tacit approval and establishment of religion over non-religion.

Churches being tax exempt has nothing to do with maintaining the separation of C&S, and everything to do with the fact that they all claim to be charitable organizations. Charitable organizations have to follow certain rules. If we excuse churches from doing so, it would recognize and give special treatment to religion over non-religion.

The Separation of Church and State works both ways, and freedom of requires freedom from. The government has no business, even in tax code, giving breaks to or recognizing religions.

[okasha]

12. As long as tax-exempt status is available to non- or anti-

religious organizations on an equal basis--for charitable and/or educational purposes--there is no establishment question for the churches. There are national and local atheist 501(c)3's, are there not?

The issue arises when organizations, like the churches in question, ask to violate the terms under which their tax-exempt status was granted. And that seems to me a very simple issue. If they want to do things disallowed by their 501(c)3 status, then they need to give up their tax exemption, refile under the appropriate category, and pay their taxes.

[darkstar3]

13. Yes, that tax-exempt status is available to religious and non-religious groups alike

under the same rules, namely that they are considered charities. It's not about religious status or separation, it's about anyone and everyone having the ability to form a charity.

And I agree with your assessment of the issue.

[humblebum]

15. Churches have had that status around much or most of the world since day one.

And at one time they were about the only charitable organizations that existed.

[darkstar3]

16. That doesn't matter at all from the POV of US law.

[humblebum]

18. Who said it did. I merely stated what the concept is based upon.

At one time churches were virtually all the charities there were and taxes were very low. the government did not have the responsibility for looking after most of those in need. US law also prohibits government intervention in tmost affairs of the churches.

[darkstar3]

20. But US law, and the US constitution, in no way prohibit the government from taxing a church.

Period.

[humblebum]

26. Nor is there a mention of separation of church and state, but certainly implied

in the 1st Amendment. The government's ability to tax is very much an imposition on any entity.

[humblebum]

14. That shouldn't even require an explanation. The concept is

from antiquity.

[darkstar3]

17. 501c3 is from antiquity? Tax-exempt status is from antiqutiy?

Um, not so much spinmeister.

[humblebum]

19. Any government restriction on church business has existed in many places

since the church's inception. The concept of Separation of C&S goes back to back to early Byzantium.

[darkstar3]

21. And making a church tax-exempt in no way falls under the realm of Separation of C&S.

[humblebum]

25. Whatever.nt

[Leontius]

22. You're kidding right, if not I can recommend some books on

Byzantine history to help clear up your mistake on this.

[humblebum]

24. No actually I am not kidding. The earliest I know of the concept

being mentioned was around the time of Justinian. It bore little resemblance to the idea we have of it today. It has evolved substantially, but the idea of "two swords"- one of church and one of the emperor dates from that time period. Actually it dates from Gelasius I's schism with Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius I - the "Acacian Schism."

[okasha]

23. A case can be made that individual bishops and rulers

attempted to keep church and state separate--eg., Thomas a Becket or Frederick of Germany--usually for their own advantage. But by and large, until the last 25 years of the 18th century and the revolutions that swept both Europe and the Americas, church and state were closely intertwined, frequently with the church taking part directly in government as a house or division of the national pariliament. Kings regularly chose their bishops and cardinals, and the Popes ususally approved those choices. Younger sons of noble families routinely went into the Church, not because they had a pastoral calling but because it gave the families a widened sphere of influence.

[humblebum]

27. I am talking about the concept of Separation of Church and State,

not the modern day reality of it. The concept evolved over centuries. By that I am referring to the recurring theme of the 'two swords' of Church and Emperor, which goes back, as an ideal, to fifth century Byzantium - Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius. There were massive struggles between the "two swords" from that time on.