Dozens of conservative pastors are defying the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ban on ministers using their pulpits to endorse political candidates. Organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, the ministers are effectively daring the IRS to take away their tax-exempt status. The effort is an obvious set-up for litigation, though they may put conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in a tough position. ADF advocates insist that the ADF’s “Pulpit Initiative” is to intended to show that the “proper role” of pastors is to try to direct the voting of the faithful.
ADF attorney Erik Stanley says that “For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church. . . . It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It’s not for the government to mandate the role of church in society.”
This is clearly the view of other nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan where clergy dominate politics and mete out their own sectarian forms of government. Now, the religious right wants to be exempted from taxes while using those tax exempt dollars to expand a church-based political movement.
The ADF was founded in 1994 by Christian conservatives including James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and William R. Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. It is viewed as an alternative to the ACLU in pushing a conservative agenda.
It would be an interesting test for Roberts and Alito, who tend to be extremely pro-government except in religion cases and a couple of other areas. Alito particularly assembled a record of virtually blind support for governmental claims in criminal, environmental, and other areas. Now, he would be asked to extend the same extreme deference to the IRS.
For the full story, click here.
Gino said;
What does an organization’s political activity have to do with whether or not it is not-for-profit in nature?
The two are seperate items. They must be non profit AND they must stay out of partisan politics.
The law is not ripe for anything other than enforcement.
I knew it was only a matter of time until this reared its ugly head. The conservative Christian right has been pushing in this direction for a long time now.
And Bush’s “faith based initiatives” helped pave the way for this mentality.
The Churches are trying to remove the divisions of church and state, and that is a clear and present danger to our democracy.
This should be SQUASHED, and the IRS should SNATCH away the tax exempt status of all churches involved.
Not take. Not remove. But SNATCH their Tax Exempt cards, right out of their fat, greasy little fingers
Revenue rulings plus the Establishment clause.
Does it get any uglier?
Organizations get 501(c)(3) status because they are charitable, educational or religious in nature. And that status comes with certain conditions, namely that they cannot engage in partisan politics. Ok, so far so good. But the one thing does not obviously follow from the other. What does an organization’s political activity have to do with whether or not it is not-for-profit in nature? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Looks like the law is ripe for challenge to me. To JT: Roberts and Alito may be reliable statists, but I think their politics sometimes comes in to play, too. … In case you didn’t know.
When it comes to this I’m for the Gordian Knot solution. Abolish tax exempt status for all religious institutions and let them take whatever political positions they want to take. The Big Lie for years has been that religious institutions are somehow not businesses. The entire Not-for-Profit concept in the US is also another business model with pretensions of charity and I’ve worked for 3 social services non-profits.
Many of these entities are formed by and pay excellent salaries to their top managers, giving them a good living and spending tens of thousands at year’s end on various toys for their manager’s pleasures, thereby eating up the profits. We perpetuate the myth that all such institutions are charitable in nature (while far too many are really unconcerned for those they serve) as a sop to believing we as a society care for those less fortunate. Some NP’s are of course wonderful, ACLU for instance, but a new paradigm for accomplishing good works is needed.
There should be few limits on free speech and having the IRS make the decision creates very bad solutions. Yet it is obvious that many churches have crossed the line into political advocacy that is quite dangerous as JT’s article points out. Abolishing tax exemptions eliminates hair splitting and political pandering. The devil though is in the details and I don’t know of a politician today with the courage to actually suggest this alternative.
Hugh and J.T.,
To quote many a Coloradan Pastor: If God isn’t a Broncos fan, why are sunsets orange and blue?
And before you start in, it’s been a rebuilding decade.
Jill,
I think that any organization that meets the qualifications deserves the tax exempt status. A charity run by a church is still a charity. I just don’t think they should get the status automatically for being a church.
Mnoble,
Then that the clergy believes God either wants him to break the law, or change the tax status of the church.
mnoble,
I think god telling clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit is precisely the problem. God seems to be a lot like the alien from the former World Wide News–he strangely seems to endorse exactly the same candidate the clergy does.
I think it’s incorrect to say churches can’t have free speech. They can speak as freely as they wish, and in my opinion, clergy do have a right to endorse the candidate they’ve decided god chose.
There’s just no reason for churches to be tax-exempt. If they do choose to be tax-exempt then they must follow the regulations set up for tax exempt status, which as Hugh pointed out, apply to anyone asking for tax exempt status. This benefit from the govt. comes with restrictions. If you don’t want the restrictions, you can still form a church and preach that Satan wants people to vote for McCain. You can preach Baal demands his worshippers vote for Obama. It wouldn’t matter. You just can’t get a financail freebie for your speech.
JT- I guess that result should have reaffirmed my faith… God is dead for Colts fans…
All seriousness, I don’t see how asking a pastor (rabbi, mullah, whatever) to refrain from having his church endorse a candidate is a limit on free speech. It is obviously different from his/her privately endorsing a candidate.
Gyges- I agree… churches are not people and do not have free speech rights.
Hugh, That is just ridiculous. The Bears beat the Colts. There is obviously a living and loving God.
mnoble,
That is just silly. God is dead.
Gyges-
What if God has told the clergy to endorse a candidate from the pulpit?
Mnoble,
There’s no limit on free speech. The church is not a person, and the clergy is free to endorse any candidate they like, as long as it is clear that they are speaking outside of their role in the church.
Hugh-
You have completely missed a very simple point. Besides that the idea that you are going to protect the integrity of an election by limiting free speech seems rather odd.
“The business of a church is for the members of that church to decide.”
From: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=resources&page=NewsArticle&id=9055&security=1441&news_iv_ctrl=2422
The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contrary to the claims of many in the Religious Right, the IRS is not singling out houses of worship for special regulation. Thousands of educational, scientific, charitable and literary organizations hold the 501(c)(3) status, and all must abide by the legal requirement barring involvement in elections.
Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious upon a moment’s reflection: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.
This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation’s campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.
Hugh-
The business of a church is for the members of that church to decide.
It is a fundamentally flawed proposition for those in government to trade tax exempt status for an agreement to abridge one’s first amendment rights. One of the foundations of our society is the idea that the constitutionally guaranteed rights are inalienable, that they cannot be bought and sold. If they can be bought and sold you can imagine the Pandora’s box that would open.
So how is taking away their tax exempt status “mandate(ing) the role of church in society”? If they choose to endorse a candidate, they are no longer performing the business of the church, in my opinion. Once that line is crossed, they should loose their status, period.