Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
In light of the ever-increasing influence on National and local politics by churches and clergy, I was interested in the recent news that over 1,000 churches will be challenging the IRS by telling their parishioners who they want them to vote for in the upcoming national elections. The event is dubbed “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” by its organizers and it is designed to challenge the IRS on its prohibition of churches from intertwining politics and religion, as a requirement of maintaining their tax-free status.
‘ “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.” The Johnson amendment in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt charities and churches from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. The IRS has been reluctant to revoke churches’ tax-exempt status for violating the more than 50-year-old IRS rule, but the agency has issued written warnings to dozens of churches.” Raw Story
The event is slated for October 7th and the organizers claim that they are trying to force the IRS to pull the tax-free status from churches to test the constitutionality of the IRS on what the churches claim is a restriction on the pastors and churches right of free speech. Of course, not all churches back this challenge of the tax-free laws. “Americans United for Church and State has pushed back against the event, sending letters to 60,000 houses of worship that urge them to obey federal tax law. “People don’t join churches because they want to be told how to vote,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Our letter reminds religious leaders about what the law requires, why it makes sense and how it could affect them.” Raw Story
While I back the pastors rights of free speech, I do not agree that churches and religious clergy have the right to free speech from the pulpit and the right to a tax-free status. If any church wants to tell its followers to back or vote a specific political party, they have the absolute right to do that under the Freedom of Speech. The real question is can these same churches still claim their tax-free status?
Do Churches and clergy violate the Separation of Church and State when they take advantage of the tax laws as a religious entity, but yet preach for specific God or church friendly candidates from the pulpit? I know this issue not only brings politicians into conflict, but as we have seen above, it even brings churches into conflict with one another. Is the solution just banning all political speech from the pulpit, or should the IRS drop all churches tax free status?
Does this discussion put Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state in jeopardy? Was Justice Black in error when he backed the Jeffersonian concept in the 1947 Supreme Court decision in Everson V. United States, that also discussed the Reynolds v. United states decision? “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.” Cornell.edu
I realize that many pastors and members of the clergy for a variety of faiths, routinely “violate” this IRS rule now. I have actually been in church and heard priests preach for specific candidates or political parties, as well as preach for or against certain government issues. It personally makes me feel uncomfortable to hear the church being used for such political and partisan purposes. How does it make you feel? Is the Separation of Church and State worth protecting?
I also disagreed when priest or nuns run for political office because of the religious vows of obedience to the Bishops and the Pope that they are required to take. Should any citizen be concerned when any member of the clergy runs for political office? Without a strong wall separating the Church from the State, can anyone’s religion be safe? What do you think?
wonder if the area churches are paid up here
http://www.firehouse.com/news/10472820/tennessee-fire-department-watches-house-burn-again
alright, that national debt won’t be so big next year.
good for the pastors, labor unions tell their people how to vote. They are shills for the democratic party. Unabashedly so.
We have about 20-25% of this country telling the other 75-80% how to think, act, speak, etc. About time someone pushes back.
I haven’t heard the pastors make a valid argument for their position yet.
wgward,
I agree. That is the simplest solution and will solve the problem! Now to examine the weird idea that god is telling your pastor how you should vote.
God appears confused. He exhorts some religious leaders to tell their congregations to vote one way and other religious leaders that their congregations should vote another way. Why is anyone listening to god if god is that confused?
Why does god always endorse the candidate whose religious leader just got some favor from that same candidate? If god is so easily bribed, should we be listening to him?
Apparently, god tells people not to criticize anyone in power. Why is god always on the side of the powerful? Should we be a little more circumspect about god? Why does god want us to listen to the religious leader and not think for ourselves? If that’s what god wants, do we have to do it or can we make a choice to listen to ourselves?
What happens if we tell god and his representatives here on earth, in politics and religion to buzz off?
Raff, thanks. You’ve got me arguing with myself. : )
I’ve changed my mind. I do that on occasion.
It’s one thing for the church to meddle in politics, it’s something else entirely for the government to tax the churches. Taxing is a means of control as indicated by someone up-thread. The government should not be exercising control over the churches.
I’m not addressing the point raised by Cheryl “The Congress promised that the IRS would not collect taxes from the church and the church promised not to promote a political agenda. When the church files the 501(c)3 paperwork, aren’t they accepting the offer?” This point also has merit. It seems some churches have decided it’s time to challenge the government agency that no one likes.
However, churches should be taxed for their profit-making enterprises. This is separate from their politicking though.
And the Lord said…. ”Let them be Taxed”
Simply: just take away their tax exemption.
Easy cases: mens rea in advance; video evidence; pews full of witnesses.
That makes sense when you stop and think about it. As the Supreme Court said in a very early case, “The power to tax involves the power to control.” Taxation is, in essence, a very strong assertion of control by a sovereign over its subjects. Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches.”
“We should take up the cause of passionate defenders of church tax exemption like Kentucky state Rep. Whittaker of the 19th century. During the debates on the Kentucky Constitution in 1890, he loudly proclaimed, “Let an untaxed Gospel be preached, in an untaxed church-house, from an untaxed pulpit; let the emblem of a crucified, but risen Christ be administered from an untaxed altar, and, as the spire points heavenward, let it stand forever untaxed.” Amen.”
=============================
Ask Jim Jones. Oh wait, he’s dead. One of his lieutenants shot him in the head because he didn’t have what it takes to drink the punch himself. In this context, you can take your “Amen” and stick it up your arse.
Salem witch trials? The churches can either keep their tax exempt status or not. They better keep politics out of the pulpit.
You’re in the minority.
I don’t see any reason why churches, religious organizations AND charity organizations are excluded from paying taxes. Let’s face it, the boys at the top of these public leech organizations are living very, very well – one could say like politicians! The money just rolls in and no one holds them accountable for it. I would love to see that change.
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2012/03/12/firstperson_why_should_churches_be_taxexempt
” there is also a constitutional reason why churches are tax exempt. Our history is one of an unbroken practice of exempting churches from taxation. Churches were exempt from the very first time the tax code was passed at the federal level, and have remained exempt in every iteration of the tax code ever since. Every state in America also exempts churches from property taxes. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case regarding the property tax exemption of churches, called Walz v. Tax Commission, it stated that providing a tax exemption for churches was a less intrusive option under the Constitution than requiring churches to pay taxes.
That makes sense when you stop and think about it. As the Supreme Court said in a very early case, “The power to tax involves the power to control.” Taxation is, in essence, a very strong assertion of control by a sovereign over its subjects. Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches.”
“We should take up the cause of passionate defenders of church tax exemption like Kentucky state Rep. Whittaker of the 19th century. During the debates on the Kentucky Constitution in 1890, he loudly proclaimed, “Let an untaxed Gospel be preached, in an untaxed church-house, from an untaxed pulpit; let the emblem of a crucified, but risen Christ be administered from an untaxed altar, and, as the spire points heavenward, let it stand forever untaxed.” Amen.”
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements—Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations
Forgot to include the link.
Raff,
What’s your thought on the same folks running for elected office…… The RCC has had numerous candidates over the years……
I am with you….. Any use of the pulpit as a edge to any Canidate or social issues should automatically revoke tax exempt status…..
The churches have been pushing the envelope for years. In my opinion it’s a flagrant disregard for the law. I believe the assumption is they will never get called on it…
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
Additional Information
Application Process Step by Step: Questions and answers that will help an organization determine if it is eligible to apply for recognition of exemption from federal income taxation under IRC section 501(a) and, if so, how to proceed.
Wouldn’t this fall under basic contract law? A promise for a promise. The Congress promised that the IRS would not collect taxes from the church and the church promised not to promote a political agenda. When the church files the 501(c)3 paperwork, aren’t they accepting the offer?
‘ “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.” The Johnson amendment in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt charities and churches from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. The IRS has been reluctant to revoke churches’ tax-exempt status for violating the more than 50-year-old IRS rule, but the agency has issued written warnings to dozens of churches.” Raw Story
==========
The IRS is fundamentally incompetent. Give them a high publicity reason to prove they have a right to exist.
The churches are making a mistake with this. If this gets started the IRS will be intent on proving they actually have a reason to exist
I prefer the churches preach God stuff and leave politics alone. If they insist on doing politics, they need to be taxed b/c they are no longer “just” churches.
I don’t know why they are tax exempt in the first place. Why do they pay no property tax??
They should be able to deduct the amount the give away, not the amount they use to proselytize, or use for other non charity work.
It makes no sense to me why I am being asked to subsidize someone else’s religion.