Golo
elcid89: blog

elcid89's blog


not the brightest strategy in the world ...


Published May. 11, 2008

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.

The ADF has been involved in a number of lawsuits against LGBT issues in various states.

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.

"It certainly does have a chilling effect," said Mike Johnson, senior counsel for the fund. "I think that there is a lot of fear and intimidation and disinformation about the parameters that do exist."

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.

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."

 

 



55 Comments


Golo

Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.

You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.



page 1 | 2
<prev    next>
sort order: oldest first | newest first

"Oldschool just doesn't get that churches, like all 501(c)(3) corporations, voluntarily agreed when they were established to refrain from political activity in exchange for their privileged (favored) tax status."

No, what you don't get his the fact that congress is prohibited by the Constitution from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Taxation of their income is an unconstitutional interference and - mark my words - the Supreme Court will agree with me on this one.

elcid, you are never going to get through here. Oldschool just doesn't get that churches, like all 501(c)(3) corporations, voluntarily agreed when they were established to refrain from political activity in exchange for their privileged (favored) tax status.

Churches are free at any time they choose to back out of this deal they made, and be as free as any other commercial enterprise to endorse candidates. To do so, they simply agree to be treated tax-wise like those other enterprises.

"I've always suspected you took a contrary view on occassion just to have something to argue about, but this one takes the cake."

Honestly, I don't. There are few issues I am more fervent about than the limitation of the encroachment of religion into a secular government. I view it as a plague that must be guarded against, lest it infect and kill the host.

Speaking as an individual? It wouldn't bother me in the least if we taxed churches into penury, seized their property for non-payment and ended the primacy of religion forever. Few things in this world have resulted in more rancor, division and enmity than religion, and getting rid of it altogether would be a great day for mankind, IMHO.

Speaking as a constitutional scholar? It would satisfy me if it is kept far on the other side of a bottomless divide from government.

"As I asked SOB - who are you (or the government) to decide HOW people worship? Many chruches see abortion as a deeply held religious issue. They should be allowed to endorse candidates who share those beliefs if they so chose."

We don't propose to. As I've said, I'm in favor of removing the barriers to political involvement. That neatly addresses your argument concerning freedom of speech. By all means, knock yourself out.

Just pay your taxes, as empowered through the 16th.

My stance, in essence, is that churches deserve no consideration for tax purposes simply by virtue of being churches. If they wish to claim a credit for funds devoted solely to charitable purposes, then by all means do so, but the purpose of this government is neither to establish the primacy of religion nor to facilitate it in any way. It may not hinder, but it also may not favor or act to empower or act to establish. As such, there is no basis for the argument that churches are entitled to tax breaks any more than you could say that paying your taxes impedes your ability to freely speak.

"FYI - I think even the Warren court would roundly disagree with your interpretation of the 1st Amendment allowing the supression of Churches. But, I guess if you believe that you can regulate people's spending without violating their first amendment rights, I guess this isn't that large a leap. Once you reach the level of acceptable totalitarianism a person can pretty much rationalize anything."

We as a society limit free speech all the time for the public good. That said, as I proposed earlier, I'm a proponent of removing the limitations on political activity in churches in due respect to the 1st. The corollary to that position is that government, by favoring religious organizations for tax purposes is acting to establish religion by creating beneficial financial considerations, and that's a no-no.

"While we're at it, when in the course of history has discussing or endorsing a candidate ever remotely been the exercise of religion?"

As I asked SOB - who are you (or the government) to decide HOW people worship? Many chruches see abortion as a deeply held religious issue. They should be allowed to endorse candidates who share those beliefs if they so chose.

FYI - I think even the Warren court would roundly disagree with your interpretation of the 1st Amendment allowing the supression of Churches. But, I guess if you believe that you can regulate people's spending without violating their first amendment rights, I guess this isn't that large a leap. Once you reach the level of acceptable totalitarianism a person can pretty much rationalize anything.

"The 16th Amendment is pretty specific about that, friend."

Not as specific as the 1st.

"Oh, and Cangress may THINK they have the power to tax the Church, but that doesn't mean they actually HAVE the power."

The 16th Amendment is pretty specific about that, friend.

"From WHATEVER source derived, without apportionment"

"lol. So you are saying the Constitution only protects the right to worship, not to have a church? Come on. "

Absolutely. Is it mandatory to have a church, or to belong to one, in order to be able to worship, or is it merely a facilitatory accessory of convenience? Were every single church in the country to be bulldozed (hypothetical) would you, as an individual, still be able in some way to exercise religion? Would it as a result have been prohibited (which is not allowed) or simply limited (which isn't specifically listed as a no-no.) Consider the literal definition of prohibit.

While we're at it, when in the course of history has discussing or endorsing a candidate ever remotely been the exercise of religion? It's the exercise of politics.

page 1 | 2
<prev    next>
sort order: oldest first | newest first

Please log in to add comment.

most recent
   blogs    galleries    profiles    popular  

strange but basically useless facts...

Any month that has a Friday the 13th also has a Wednesday the 25th. John Madden is an accomplished...

what's your favorite sports car

Mine is the Saleen S7 and heres why... The S7 twin-turbo is a thrill to drive but you must keep...

why not just a graduate?

 This is an amazing story to me because he over came the stereotypes and trials of being...

speaking of michael moore

I can't stand this guy.... really...ugh!!! Last week on "Larry King Live"...

bruster update...

okay, I am going to bore you all to death with tidbits about Bruster (i call him my Bru baby). the...

thank you blablah and all of my beautiful friends

Thank you blablah, my beautiful and kind friend who posted a blog for me at the weeks...

yippy !!!! it's friday!!

Zippity Doo Dah Zippity Aye My...

vote for romeo!!

Well, since others are out campaigning for their pets, I have to put out the word about my sweet Romeo!!! ...

applying chip's climbing adventures in keyboarding

In keyboarding class we have been keeping up with Chip’s climb to the top of Mount Everest....

i "freaking" apoligize...

I went to comment on the story about Shania Twain and the software slapped my hand because I might...

   blogs    galleries    profiles    popular  

profile of ncnatural

Just lurking around

profile of cznlife57

Life is a test of faith, some days the test is harder, but faith prevails.

profile of rtrobertson4

It's time to start using common sense!!!!

profile of thinkb4speak

We all need to think about things from both sides of the fence before we attack someone for their behavior or actions.

profile of wolfcraig

The strength of the Wolf is in the Pack

profile of theenigma

In my opinion, ignorance is a much bigger threat than terrorism.

   blogs    galleries    profiles    popular  

profile of sue donym

"In three words I can sum up everything I have learned about life: It goes on."                                                  ...

profile of yogi bear

Don't touch the crystals Rick Marshall.

profile of dayum sessy

DONT FLAG ME BRO !!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I feel so much better now! ...

profile of packy aka kracka

"In three words I can sum up everything I have learned about life: It goes on." ...