1,000 RWer preachers will endorse candidates from the pulpit?
Wikimedia Commons | Words by Dan
Supposedly in the name of “free speech,” more than 1,000 conservative pastors are promising to stand up in their pulpits prior to November’s election and endorse candidates.
They will have somebody videotaping this endorsement, and they will send the video to the IRS, as a challenge for the federal agency to do something about it.
That’s because it’s currently a violation of federal law for churches and tax-exempt charities to endorse political candidates. These churches could lose their federal tax exemption for it. And that means their donors could lose the ability to deduct contributions on their taxes. This law, which applies to all 501(c)3 charities, is known as the “Johnson rule” and it’s been on the books for more than 50 years.
The misguided pastors are being organized by an outfit called Alliance Defending Freedom. And it trumpets the issue as one of “free speech rights.” The government, they argue, is squelching these preachers’ free speech. Prohibiting the pastors from endorsing candidates is a violation of their First Amendment Rights.
This is 100 percent untrue. It’s based on an uneducated/redneck view of what the First Amendment says. And that’s being egged on by smart-though-evil people who know better, but who have an interest in seeing Mitt Romney get elected. Because that’s who these pastors are going to endorse, after all, probably along with some other RWer candidates lower on the ticket.
Let’s get it straight: The IRS isn’t restraining ANYONE from saying ANYTHING on behalf of ANY candidate. No preacher has been muzzled, or is going to be muzzled. They can say whatever they want.
But they can’t necessarily expect to endorse a candidate and have their church maintain its tax-exempt status.
Let’s keep in mind that the government maintains the roads those congregants drive on to get to those churches. The government sends firefighters to put out blazes in those churches when they catch fire. The government covers the cost of police investigating break-ins at those churches. The government gives those churches disaster aid when they get flooded and are temporarily out of businesses.
And they pay absolutely no real estate, income or other taxes. And the people who give them money are allowed to do so tax-free.
In these respects, the government actually SUBSIDIZES these churches and other 501(c)3 charities. And among the rules that allow such a subsidy is that the church can’t endorse a political candidate. So if a church wants to keep that SUBSIDY, all it has to do is make sure its preacher shuts his trap concerning political endorsements, and stays neutral.
It’s not a matter of FREE speech, then — it’s a matter of SUBSIDIZED speech. They’ve got that now, provided they adhere to a simple rule. But they don’t want to.
These preachers — the ones who are going to pull these endorsement stunts and defy federal law — want to have their cake and eat it to.
They have the freedom to choose one way or the other. Let’s hope the IRS cracks down on them — like the federal agency hasn’t in the past.
September 23, 2012 - 8:44 PM
OK, then I hope you won’t mind if the the thousands of black churches get their tax-exempt status revoked for endorsing Democrats. Glad we’re clear on that.
I look forward to seeing 1000 fundies endorse a Mormon. Something to point and laugh at when Obama wins.
Here it comes,
“Hello,
I am from the IRS and I am here to talk about your 501(c)3 status.”
.
.
——-
http://tinyurl.com/8trmmqv
**
Pastor Wary of Bush Camp’s Religious Voter Drive
Allie Martin, Agape Press
Monday, July 12, 2004
A Southern Baptist pastor is encouraging the Bush-Cheney campaign to rethink a request asking volunteers to share information from their church directories with the campaign.
SNIP
“The danger is jeopardizing the 501c3 status of a church,” Cureton says, “because if you’ve got a political party that is actively working a congregation, according to the code, you have to allow the other side the same access. And so it’s kind of the fox in the henhouse principle.”
SNIP
**
There was also an Episcopal Church on the hook about the same time, but I can’t find a link at this point w/o paying for archive search.
I have to raise an eyebrow. My new polling place this year is a church.
My polling place got changed, too — to a Masonic lodge!
Comment by Dan Casey — September 23, 2012 @ 10:19 pm
My polling place got changed, too — to a Masonic lodge!
———–
So which Lodge of Masons bought your old polling place and converted it to a Masonic Lodge Building?
.
.
FWIIW, like Churches being the people not the building where they worship, proper usage (albeit often misused) is that Freemasons meet as a Lodge not in a Lodge.
The pastors have the right to endorse anyone they wish—
Just not from the pulpit and not as an official action of their church if they want to preserve tax exempt status
The premise on subsidy is wrong. Because the gov’t builds roads and pays policeman it can tell the churches what to do? That doesn’t pay the bills; donations and gifts do. Let’s just have a “state church.” Patbetic correlation, but no surprise.
Since all churches, synagogues and mosques are in fact businesses, their tax exempt status should be revoked.
Since the dawn of time, women have sold physical comfort, but it turns out false, while men have sold spiritual comfort, but it also turns out false. We can argue which is the oldest profession – but we know what the profession is.
The real word of “god” is simply to love each other and follow the golden rule, which are innate ideas that carry their own authority. Everyone is born with the knowledge of these inseparable concepts, and they come into clearer focus as we mature. We either decide to obey them, or remain selfish dogs. And considering that love and the golden rule are literally the only thing that every rational adult believes, they must be the highest truth.
Thankfully, as a species we seem to be gaining a little ground on our stupidity… Ancient religions once believed that Earth was the center of the universe, and so it is that speaking for god will also pass away as an absurdity. The sooner the better.
Only conceited fools think that anything is above the eternal principles of love and the golden rule. And the religions that priestcrafters annex these universal constants to are only vehicles for power, profit and self-aggrandizement.
But some priestcrafters act nice, you say… Well, that’s what they’re paid to do! Priestcrafters should find real employment and help their neighbors for free like the rest of us.
Wildmon and Dobson, color me surprised.
Dave Hicks,
Thank you for the correction re: Masons & lodges.
Here is what my newly issued Virginia voter registration cards says as to the polling place:
Lakeland Masonic Lodge #190, 2742 Grandin Road SW.
fyi, for 18 years, we have voted in the same place: the gym at Raleigh Court Elementary. Even though that school closed, the building remains open and the school building has been repurposed.
There is probably not a more out-of-the-way/tucked away public/semi-public place in my neighborhood. I’m sure this will cause confusion on election day among many voters.
JSwift,
You’ve got your argument backwards. The government is not telling the church what it CAN do; if anything, it is telling them what they CAN’T do.
Actually, they aren’t even going THAT far. They aren’t telling them anything. What the 50+-years-old law says is: 501(c)3 institutions may not endorse political candidates. If they do, their tax-exempt status may be in jeopardy.
It’s up to the churches as to whether they choose “the freedom” to endorse over their tax-exempt status.
well mitt should be happy….he tells the people what they want to hear……organized religion tells the people what they want to hear…..and both ask the people for money…..what a sham
Well,
It’s not a very smart law. A law such as this can’t be practically enforced in any manner. I bet there’s scant evidence that it has been enforced, ever, and there’s plenty of political speech going on in churches. Has been for a long time.
And as much as I dislike religion, I see nothing wrong with political speech in churches. The assumption is that folks will sit in the pews and make uniform decisions about what their minister says. Some will. Some will sit there and question if it’s really a message they want to hear and leave. Still more will exercise their own judgement in the ballot box. It can be as polarizing in a congregation as it is in society and ultimately degrades the authority of church. If a minister typically tells the congregation how to vote then ultimately there will be only a congregation of a similar mind, and often that means both a small mind and a small congregation. Could explain why people are becoming less and less religious. (Among numerious other things)
I trust your equally open to investigate the tax exempt status of Media Matters, correct?
Roanoke Times, 6/24/07, Pg A 18: Faith got hijacked for politics. Obama tells church convention that right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs. Let me get this straight — Obama’s at a church convention complaining about other politicians exploiting religion. What’s wrong with that picture?
Interesting that it’s just right-wing evangelical leaders that are bad actors. Certainly this wouldn’t apply to “The Reverend Al Twana Sharpton” or the “The Reverend Jessie Hymietown Jackson” or to their friends and associates. Nope! Only applies to those bad right-wing guys. All the religious leaders supporting Kerry, Gore, The Clintons et al are really good folks who would never use the pulpit as a political podium.
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-and-faith.html
-
Religion’s rightful role in democracy
The Roanoke Times, 5/1/05, Pg H 3: A comprehensive response by Timothy Anderson pastor at St. Mark Lutheran Church in Roanoke to two articles in the Roanoke Times.
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2005/05/religions-rightful-role-in-democracy.html
-
And then there’s the mother of all 501c violators: The AARP who are clearly an extension of the DNC and every socialistic action they propose.
-
And how about the NAACP! They are a 501c tax-exempt organization that also is an extension of the DNC that is a major political action organization.
-
Move along folks, nothing to see with the Democrats 501c supporters; but look carefully over there at those nasty Conservatives and their Guns And Bibles.
-
Precisely Dan, only as we all know, they want both.
Let’s get real, the IRS will never go after churches on this law unless the Church goes out of its way to encourage such. The IRS has historically taken a hands off approach to religious activities. They will continue to do so. The churches know this and they will push the limits of the law, accordingly. Lee Atwater knew this and took full advantage with the Moral majority.
That does not mean the IRS or any other government agency will step it. They simply will not. The citizens of this Country must decide the limits they will allow their religious leaders may take in their attempt to control your minds as well as your souls.
These are the people the folks who call themselves Christian want to endorse. What would Jesus think?
http://www.nationalmemo.com/tax-avoidance-government-dependency-and-romneys-boca-raton-host/
I see that Trump will be addressing the lemmings at Liberty University today, including all those students with their government grants or loans. Wonder if he’ll expound on his birther beliefs.
Well I’m glad about this in a perverse way. That means my tax free organization, the Secular Humanists of Roanoke, can now endorse all the candidates we want along with our fellow atheists.
Or do you think the churches will be opposed to that?
#15 As well as whether the social advocacy groups are violating the endorsement law, Bill.
“The pastors have the right to endorse anyone they wish—
Just not from the pulpit and not as an official action of their church if they want to preserve tax exempt status”
So gdad, do you support yanking the tax exempt status of black churches that endorse candidates?
As expected some of you Lars Hagen are conflating 501(c)3 churches with 501(c)4 organizations like the AARP and NAACP. Again and again you prove why you are labeled “low effort” voters.
A voter guide comparing the candidates is not the same as a pastor telling you whom to vote for from the pulpit or their place of authority. It is a pastor’s job to steer, lead, guide and direct a congregation. The NAACP nor the AARP has such a role in ANYONE’s life!
“So gdad, do you support yanking the tax exempt status of black churches that endorse candidates?”
Henry,
It’s interesting that you frame your question to apply only to black churches. What does race have to do with this? Do you believe black churches should get some extra special treatment?
I would support yanking the tax exempt status of ANY church that explicitly endorses a political candidate.
Henry, you are seriously delusional. EVERY church whose pastor “preaches” whom to vote for should lose their tax exempt status. Is that clear enough for you?
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/The-Restriction-of-Political-Campaign-Intervention-by-Section-501(c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Organizations
Funny Stuff.
My pastor has never mentioned the first party or candidates name in any sermon.
But if you only paid attention for 5 minutes it’s obvious who you DONT vote for.
vote PRINCIPLES..not PEOPLE
IANAL.
However, folk bring in organizations with exemption under one of the other 28 (501(c)1-2 & 501(c)4-29) classifications of 501(c).
It is the organizations described in section 501(c)(3) that are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities or intervene in elections to public office.
Don’t mix apples and oranges or 28 other types of fruit.
#23 Why, yes, I do, Henry. ANY church.
Richard nails it… the government, particularly the IRS is not going to enforce these laws on churches, the AARP, NAACP or Secular Humanists of America. Not gonna happen and it shouldn’t. .
For once Pistol Pete is right, if a preacher is preaching the Gospel, it is glaringly clear who to vote for. Jesus and his prophets tell us over and over and over again what makes a “wise ruler”, a “just ruler” and a leader whom God favors.
“…whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me” (Matthew 25:40, CEV). Commitment to true shalom – concern for the health and well-being of all, especially the poor – is at the heart of leadership that is marked by justice and compassion. Psalm 72 outlines the “job description” of a righteous leader who “rescues the homeless when they cry out, and he helps everyone who is poor and in need” (Psalm 72:12, CEV). The apostle Paul spoke of love as the essential feature of life for creating community marked by harmony and peace (see Romans 12:9-21 and 1 Corinthians 13). Wise leaders temper judgment with mercy and do not discriminate against the poor.”
http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/bible-resources/bible-resource-center/topics-in-the-bible/leadership
Richard nails it… the government, particularly the IRS is not going to enforce these laws on churches, the AARP, NAACP or Secular Humanists of America. Not gonna happen and it shouldn’t.
Wait til they hire several thousand more IRS agents to enforce the 0bamacare tax. Then it’s just a short hop over to the white Christian churches.
You are right too Sandi!
Blessed is the nation whose GOD is Lord – Psalm 33:12
– Thanks to your Athiest friends at the DNC, the acceptance of this thought was BOOOOOOOOOOOED by the audience.
#2 I wonder why it’s right wingers who bring race into this.
I am sure Iran appreciates your Blessing Pistol Pete!
The people at the convention, whether you want to believe it or not, were not booing God or putting the words “God-given” back into the platform. Believe what you will, it is the right wing way. Liberals and Democrats are not heathens who hate God or the Bible.
What law are folk thinking about that will not be enforced on AARP, NAACP or any of the other 501(c)1 or 2 or any of the other 501(c)4 through 29 classifications of the various 501(c) provisions?
What the heck are y’ll talking about?
Citation please.
What law are folk thinking about that will not be enforced on AARP, NAACP or any of the other 501(c)1 or 2 or any of the other 501(c)4 through 29 classifications of the various 501(c) provisions?
What the heck are y’ll talking about?
Citation please.
Think about it, genius. Look at who is doing the ‘enforcing’. The 0bama JD which threw out a slamdunk intimidation case against the New Black Panthers.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2012/09/au-calls-for-irs-to-investigate.html
Americans United announced last week that it has filed a complaint (full text of letter) with the Internal Revenue Service asking it to investigate the Ridgway, Colorado based Ridgway Christian Center for violating tax code limitations on non-profit organizations. The letter points to a magazine distributed by Ridgway (a project of Praise Him Ministries) to Colorado residents:
Please note the cover of the publication. It is dated Fall 2012 and contains a photo of a series of American flags. The headline reads, “Honor God! Love your country! VOTE REPUBLICAN!”
Inside the publication, Victoria Hearst, founder and president of the ministry, writes a long article challenging the right of the Internal Revenue Service to prohibit tax exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The articles relies heavily on material produced the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), an Arizona-based organization that every year sponsors an event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” during which pastors are urged to openly violate the law by endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit.
#35 –HA! Once again Sandi lies to herself and the blog.
As we say in SW VA: “I didn’t fall off the tater truck yesterday”
That mayor was clueless when the VOICES of NO..were louder than the AYES!
We are a Godless country run amok thanks to the Liberals.
32. Suzie, “White Christian Churches”? What about the brick ones.
37. As usual, you are heading out there. Obama, nor the IRS, nor the AG, is going to attack the exempt status of the Churches over their Preacher, Priest, or Elder preaching politics. Our separation of church and state works both ways and while it is a shame churches want to get into politics, the government does not want to get into churches. They avoid it unless it is obvious the organization is not a church.