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.
So, we have a tax law that restricts the speech and political activity of religious and other charitable organizations. The law has no apparent relationship to an organization’s non-profit nature, but that’s okay. The law is good because it moderates the (largely perceived) negative influence of religion on politics. By all accounts, however, the law doesn’t work. It’s being flouted by both conservative and liberal religious leaders, and is openly defied by some on the religious right as a prelude to a legal challenge.
You know, I’m starting to feel pretty good about all of this.
I disagree with removing the exemptions for religion. Religious freedom was a founding principle this nation was built on and tax exemption for actual religions helps smaller faiths survive in the world of the “mega-church”.
Whether or not you like religion is moot. Its part of our heritage and part of our society, and thus leveling the playing field so that smaller religions can survive helps with religious diversity, which is a good thing.
I’m curious to know which pastors join in this effort (which definitely wouldn’t fly in the churches I fellowship with). Mike, I’m with you on abolishing the tax exemption.
Jill,
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Feel free to believe what you want, just keep it off my Constitution. I am fully aware of how the Establishment Clause operates. Palin and her ilk are the type of people that will eviscerate the Est. Cl. to promote their religious agenda – to Hell with Lemmon and excessive entanglement. They’re theocrats. They’d have you say The Lord’s Prayer before the Pledge of Allegiance. Theocrats insist on ruling by beliefs, not facts. That’s just as crazy as being in a death cult so they get the double whammy.
And crazy qualifies for intolerance for those scoring at home. I’ll tolerate anyone’s beliefs as long as they don’t endanger my life or the lives of those I care about. If they do pose a real physical threat, I’ll be glad to take appropriate action to stop the True Believers up to and including violence if need be (always the last resort). Just because you think God says it’s okay to kill me doesn’t mean I’m going to let you.
I have it on good authority that God hates the Raiders. He told my uncle that right after he told him that the Apocalypse is a good thing and before He told him that, yes, avocado pits do need to be that large.
Signed,
A Chiefs fan.
I know the conversation has moved on, but I can’t seem to help myself.
God is dead for Raiders fans as well.
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
*******
You were right the first time, Gino. Jill attracts the yahoos,
and I try to get rid of them
The “yahoos” of course being anyone who doesn’t agree with her opinion.
I think a more pertinent question would be, does anybody care?
The point is that we need not scurry away from the label of “intolerant,” if that which we are asked to “tolerate” is in fact intolerable.
***
Here, here!
Anybody questioning what I’m finding ‘intolerable’ these days?
‘L. Ron Hubbard, in my opinion, created The Church of Scientology because he was smart enough to realize the economic and power potential of having his own religion.’
***
So did est’s Werner Erhard (a/k/a Jack Rosenberg/Landmark Education), although he chose not to go the non-profit route. That didn’t keep him from getting in trouble with the IRS, courtesy of L Ron. or them
from getting kicked out of France all on their own, either!
——–
Erhard and Scientology
In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard set up est he considered making it a non-profit, as Hubbard had done with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.
Erhard and his supporters accuse Scientology of being behind various attempts to discredit Erhard, including hounding by the IRS and accusations of incest by his children. Erhard won a lawsuit against the IRS and the incest accusations were recanted. Erhard has claimed he has good evidence that Scientologists made a strong and concerted effort to destroy him.
Gino:
“Because in a tolerant democracy everyone would shout down these superstitious freaks? Kind of puts new definitions on tolerance and democracy, doesn’t it?”
*******************
Not really! Tolerance, like most virtues, is not an absolute lest we permit the classic outcry in a crowded theatre of “Fire, Fire,” or alow murderers to walk the streets. That a society refuses to “tolerate” those who would subvert its fundamental ideals does not strike me as a vice–indeed it is likely a virtue. The point is that we need not scurry away from the label of “intolerant,” if that which we are asked to “tolerate” is in fact intolerable.
Mike,
I’d like to see the full financial disclosure as well. Lack of disclosure hides a multitude of sins in churches and in other non-profits as you explained before. I think the financial disclosure would show what burbilly said was accurate and help explain the increased entwinement of politics and religion.
L. Ron Hubbard, in my opinion, created The Church of Scientology because he was smart enough to realize the economic and power potential of having his own religion. From the beginning it was set up to be a way of making money and avoiding taxes. In the US for many years this has been the way many so-called religious leaders have made their way in the world, accumulating wealth and power along the way. Sinclair Lewis laid it out in “Elmer Gantry” as did Zane Grey in “Riders of the Purple Sage.” In all probability though, the scam goes back to the beginnings of civilization.
I’m not impugning religion by stating this, nor am I casting aspersions on the many sincere religious prophets. However, there are no doubt wolves among each ministry shearing the sheep, before they eat them. After all, to people of predatory bent it’s obviously a perfect setup. How better to scam people than by preying upon their fear of death? The problem posed here is both how to we protect our country from these predators and how do we allow true believers to practice their faiths? While current IRS law offers a means, its enforcement is predicated upon the Administration in power and the political clout of the phony practitioner.
Since I don’t believe that we can create legislation that will effectively allow for religious freedom, while ensuring that said freedom does not allow a given faith to become a means of political control, I assert that all churches and non-profits should not be tax exempt. Their tax rates can be smaller than current business taxation, but they would be required to provide full financial disclosure. Are there holes in this argument, no doubt about it, but I think it points out a direction to move in. The infestation of our political narrative by religion has become frightening and dangerous.
This blog used to be geared toward legal discussion – not religion
or the ‘persecuted’.
****
‘… The christian taliban works to further empower the rich, who will never subject themselves to the laws of their footsoldiers. It will never address the most pressing problems of our time, but it does offer that taste of power to the powerless. I think that’s why it works.’
Gino,
I am really willing to talk about things with you. Many of the people who post here are willing to listen to others and thoughtfully respond. Check out the posts on Utah water. I have been reading them and thinking, well that’s a good point, about 30 times!
Like Gyges, I did get a laugh when you wrote, “you people” after saying it was wrong to lump people together. I’ll never claim to be “entirely mentally stable” but I will listen to a sincere argument and so will others. So, how do you see the situation?
Don’t forget that I once said, “You people are nuts.” Jill shamed me into backtracking and saying, “You people may not be entirely mentally stable.” Does it help that by “you people” I mean the commenters here? Probably not.
*******
You were right the first time, Gino. Jill attracts the yahoos,
and I try to get rid of them.
Don’t forget that I once said, “You people are nuts.” Jill shamed me into backtracking and saying, “You people may not be entirely mentally stable.” Does it help that by “you people” I mean the commenters here? Probably not.
Jill,
I don’t know who he meant by “you people,” but I did enjoy the phrase coming at the end of a post about how one shouldn’t lump people together and make generalizations.
Gino
1, September 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I come here often, but I still can’t make you people out.
😐
Then I’d quit trying to make out with us.
Gino,
It is objective reality. People do hold sincere beliefs, I agree with you on that. Just because a belief is sincere doesn’t mean it can’t be critically analyzed. It’s not just a few bad actors, as in 6 to 8 people. It’s a large group of people who are acting badly. Not everyone’s motives are malicious, but when people refuse to think through the reasons for their bad actions it’s still not right for them to act badly. The belief system of the christian right does not honor our Constitution, our nation or the rights of others. It may be uncomfortable to hear that but it’s not wrong to point that out.
When you say, “you people” who do you mean?