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.
mnoble,
I don’t think things are as you describe. As Hugh, CroMM and others have said, tax exemption is a privledge. The rules for obtaining it obtain to any group who applies for it. It is not necessary to apply for it but once you apply for it you follow the rules of it (ideally). This is the same with any other tax laws, for example if you don’t own a home you can’t apply for a mortgage interest deduction.
Where your argument would come into play is should the govt. forbid a religious organization to exist at all, or if it allows it to exist, forbid it free speech. Every religious organization has a right to exist and put forth their teachings. What you envision may well happen after the next election. We may indeed be heading towards a christian theocracy where only certain christian churches will be tolerated in the US.
Yes, it can be much more plain than that.
Your position still relies on the notion that Tax exemption is a right, which it is not.
Your position ignores this fact.
It is a privilege. And privileges are awarded based on compliance with requirements.
And one of the requirements for a church to be tax exempt is keeping out of partisan politics.
Instead of asking us what we’re all “so afraid they’ll say” you should be asking yourself why you’re so afraid of the concept of seperation of church and state.
Jill-
If you speak as we wish you to we will reward you, if you speak as we do not want you to we will punish you.
It can not be more plain than that.
Jill, Obama’s faith in action call for renewal stuff is the Kingdom of God on earth movement! Basically there were some extreme fringe nonrepresentative Religious Right folks (“Reconstructionists”, “Dominionists,” etc), that though still around, really had been so marginalized to irrelevance, but now that Obama has based his campaign largely on the religo-political semi-socialistic “social justice” network theology (Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Jimmy Carter, Sabeel, Palestinian Liberation Theology, etc) and it’s whole ecumenical program is “we are the change”, we can redeem society, we can create the Kingdom on Earth, the far right nutcases are actually realigning and joining with the Obama side, I kid you not!
Just curious, I opened a tab and Googled “Brian McLaren Kingdom Now” and 325,000 entries turned up.
Your position that we are endorsing the restriction of free speech rests solely on the false notion that Tax Exemption is a given right.
It’s not. It’s a privilege.
You’re free to try and make the case that Tax Exemption is a right and not a privilege if you like.
I wouldn’t if I were you, as it is wholly untenable, but you’re welcome to try.
Otherwise you’ll want to retract your bogus claims that any of us are advocating the restrictions of free speech, because we are not.
We are supporting the founding principle that hopefully we all learned in elementary school, that is, the seperation of church and state.
A principle that does not seem to sit too well with you, for some reason.
mnoble
1, September 11, 2008 at 10:03 am
You endlessly try to rationalize abridgement of free speech.
No.
You endlessly try to invent issues of free speech where none exist.
At least thats what you’re doing here.
Please explain how exactly someone is restricting their ‘free speech’.
Tax exemption is not a right, but you are blindly pretending it is, to try and sell your point.
Tax exemption is something you “APPLY” for.
Like a drivers license.
It is NOT a right.
In order to obtain a drivers license you must comply with the guidelines, laws and requirements. You even have to take a test.
And not one, but two tests.
Thus, driving is not a right. Its a privilege that is given to those who comply with the defined requirements and guidelines.
And Tax Exemption is NOT a right either.
In order to obtain Tax Exemption you must comply with the guidelines, laws and requirements.
And one of those requirements is keeping your Theocracy out of my Democracy.
😐
Tax Exemption is a privilege given to those who comply with the requirements for tax exempt status.
Thus, if someone wishes to ignore those requirements they can. They merely do not get to be tax exempt.
That in no way restricts their free speech. They are free to say what they want, and even form a religion and say what they want.
But if they want the PRIVILEGE of tax exemption, then they will need to comply with the requirements.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS09/809110405
Mrs. Obama stresses need for faith, prayer in Ohio stop
Ohio Baptists give her warm welcome
I think this is a big mistake on the Obamas’ part. There are messianic elements to what Mrs. Obama says which echo Mr. Obama’s earlier statements about bringing the kingdom of god here on earth. The religious right is by and large taken. Why not go before the church as a person who cares about the poor? This approach would mean a lot to both religious and non-religious people.
mnoble,
How do you see the church’s free speech being curtailed? I’m confused because I believe others have given very good explanations as to why there is not curtailment of free speech. I am missing something here.
For my own part I am not afraid to hear what any religious group has to say. I will say WHAT some religious people say is scary to me but that doesn’t mean I think they should not or do not have a right to say it.
Help me understand what you mean.
Thanks,
Jill
You endlessly try to rationalize abridgement of free speech.
Again I ask you, and perhaps you can honestly answer this time, why are you so afraid of what they may say?
Why are you so afraid of one of the cornerstone principles of our democracy? Seperation of Church and state.
Once more, no one is limiting free speech.
Churches are in no way “forced” into tax exemption.
They choose it, by applying for it.
Tax exemption is a privilege for these churches, not a right. It is given to them for merely honoring several principles and one of them is our founding principle of seperation of church and state.
If they choose not to honor that, and try to mingle their religion with government, then they are not eligible for tax exemption.
There is no free speech issue here. They’re free to say what they want without penalty. But if they want privilege, then they need to comply with the requirements.
Gyges-
You’ve got it backwards, Nancy Pelosi is the zombie.
Rafflaw-
We certainly wouldn’t want free speech in a church and certainly would want the IRSS to crush any resistance.
But seriously why are you guys so afraid of free speech?
If you espouse a specific political agenda from the pulpit, you have crossed the line and the IRS needs to enforce it. With that said, the Bush regime will never do that as long as Bush or McCain are President.
I agree, Gyges, that lumping people together does deny them some element their individuality. I don’t mean to lump christians anymore than we lump republicans or democrats about their platfroms. There are some strong currents of belief that creationist doctrine should be imposed on science classes in public schools. That birth control and sex education should be restricted to the limitations of moral doctrine, however ineffective that may be at preventing teen pregnancies. These and other such scary propositions do exist on a fundamentalist christian platform. I think it’s cheating for such political activity to benefit from tax exempt status. It violates separation of church and state.
Burbilly,
Lumping all Christians together is just lazy thinking. There are a huge variety of beliefs and doctrines that all fall under the umbrella of Christianity. It’s especially lazy to think that all Christians have the same political views.
Getting back to article at the top here, the “cloud of intimidation over the church” must be felt within the church they know that for over a century they’ve been commiting tax fraud. The 501(c) status they’ve enjoyed has allowed them to milk the government, through non-payment of taxes, for probably billions of dollars. The church was politically involved getting prohibition in place, which was initiated by Rockefeller and succeeded in driving alcohol off the market as a fuel. For 80 years now big oil has enjoyed a lack of competition from alternative energy sources as a direct result of that. How is this a charitable action of the church’s part?
I am for abolishing the tax exemption for religious organizations. It would not be the first time that the excesses of some has ruined a privilege for the many. And 501(a) tax status is a privilege, not a right. I think it’s a good idea in the interest of national security. Like I mentioned earlier it would be more honest of the christian church at large to come out of political hiding and redefine itself as a Theocratic political party and share the same tax status with Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians etc.
Mnoble,
Maybe God’s a zombie.
Hugh-
How can God be dead when he was just telling Nancy Pelosi that Obama is the candidate he has graced us with?
Check out the participants for the “Values” voter summit!
Entire Values Voter Summit 2008 to be webcast live on AFA.net this Friday and Saturday
Webcast is free but registration is required. Register Today!
September 9, 2008
Here is your opportunity to be a part of the largest pro-family, social conservative event of the year for free and without ever leaving home!
AFA.net will offer a free stream the Values Voter Summit 2008 (Sept. 12-14), the largest meeting of social conservatives this year, live on the internet. The event begins this coming Friday morning and ends on Saturday evening. The entire conference will be streamed live on AFA.net.
***Participants include Sean Hannity, Chuck Colson, Newt Gingrich, Maggie Gallagher, Phyllis Schlafly, Star Parker, Alveda King, Bill Bennett, Ken Blackwell, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jonathan Falwell, and a host of others. The line-up is a virtual who’s who of social conservatives. Click here to see the line-up.
We encourage you to register now for the free live webcast. Then, on Friday, all you have to do is to enter your e-mail address! A complete schedule of when each participant will be speaking can be found here so you can pick and chose which speakers you want to listen to.
Patty,
I agree with your linkage of Erhard to Hubbard. Both men cynically used people’s weakness as a money making scheme. For EST itself though it borrowed heavily from Fritz Perl’s Gestalt Therapy for technique. The difference was that under the EST aegis Gestalt therapy was turned into something monstrous, that had never been intended by Perl’s or Gestalt practitioners. I had at least two patients who I treated after EST weekends. They had been treated harshly and when “broken down” and in a depressed state, were shuffled out of the room and ignored. EST preyed upon people who had problems and offered little solutions except to spend more money.
As for religious tax exemption, it is not the general concept that bothers me, it is the ability to game the system. I’m cognizant of the Constitutional reasons for tax exemptions, but the execution of preventing religious abuse is woefully lacking. I offered the examples I did to get across the idea that the “scammers” know how to get around the regulations and the IRS is hamstrung by political interference. If a law is virtually unenforceable, then it shouldn’t exist and the identified problem should be dealt with via another modality. That’s why I’m against tax exemptions for religious institutions
The law doesn’t restrict their speech. They are free to speak what they want, but if they want tax exemption, they’ll honor the time proven cornerstone principle of seperation of church and state.
If they wish to ignore that sound doctrine, and merge religion with politics, then they are free to do so.
They just won’t get tax exemption.