Politics in Religion

There is a growing movement among churches to endorse specific political candidates from the pulpit. These churches' leadership feel that their first amendment rights are violated by a law preventing tax-exempt religious groups from being politically partisan. Groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation have been demanding the IRS enforce the law for years, but the IRS has thus far looked the other way. This led to the FFRF suing over the matter, which caused the IRS to look into it.

Upon hearing this, Pulpit Freedom Sunday has grown larger than ever this year, with more than 1800 congregations planning on endorsing specific candidates. Both sides of this think their respective positions are legally and ethically unassailable.

It isn't clear to me how this will turn out. I've even read that it is possible that both the Pulpit Freedom Sunday crowd and the Freedom From Religion Foundation could win a suit simultaneously, which would probably mean this would go to the Supreme Court (and we all know how that would go right now).


What are your thoughts? My questions are inherently biased, but should tax-exempt groups be allowed to be partisan? Is only granting tax-exempt status to non-partisan nonprofits a violation of a person's first amendment rights? Are religious organizations entitled to tax-free status?

I personally do not feel limiting an organization's ability to make partisan statements infringes on any person's first amendment rights, as any individual in an organization can make whatever statements they'd like. Or in other words, a pastor can talk about who he is voting for and why any time he isn't standing at the pulpit or otherwise speaking in an official capacity and not be violating the law. Also, he is free to preach whatever he wants concerning politically active issues, so long as he doesn't discuss parties or candidates (imo).

I do hope organizations, be they a secular charity or a religious group, lose their tax-exempt status if they become political.

I would love to see some thoughts from folks here on this. Below are some links, from various perspectives:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...stors-advocate-political-speech-rights-church

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/suit-to-restrict-pulpit-speech-dismissed/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/atheists-lawsuit-irs_n_3792145.html

 

Only individuals should be taxed anyways

 

I could get on board with this, but I would want either a progressive system, protections against money spent/transferred overseas, or both. Which I know would be objectionable to you and deemed "retarded" by BPV.

 

Also, does this mean you do not agree that corporations are "people?"

 

We left a church we were members of in Ohio because of this.

In 2004, the church brought in Sean Hannity, Bill Cunningham, Zell Miller and Bill Bennett for a political rally and handed out voting pamphlets.

A real low point in my adult spirtiual walk.

 

Why did they feel this was necessary?

 

People too often seem to think that freedom of speech is the same as a right to have no consequence or opposition to what they say. These churches want it both ways, to be politically influential and have the perks of a money making enterprise with no requirement for taxation. The fundamental objection to me is the idea that they are somehow being abused due to their religious view when that, as a matter of fact, has absolutely nothing to do with them being taxed. In other words, the religious argument is a crutch they're using.

 

If the money is made here, I don't have a issue with the transfer protection. If you're below the poverty line, you don't owe but everyone else does a flat percentage no deductions

 

They're made up of people but I wouldn't call one a person. Which is why I don't believe in a tax on businesses, they can't pay them only people can pay taxes

 

I wouldn't go to a church where they brought in Sean Hannity.

But why does the free exercise clause repeatedly get trumped by the establishment clause? And why does not taxing churches fall under the category of potentially being a law "respecting the establishment of religion?" I don't buy it. That wasn't Madison and co's original intent.

 

I'm fairly certain most congregations are fully aware of which way their pastor/leader is voting if they pay any attention to the message/direction of his leadership.

 

At a macro level - if you are going to clamp down on one group, then you need to clamp down on all. I'm sure I could look close enough to find all areas of 501(c) groups do things that cross the line when it gets to the political endorsement area.

Personally - if I were at a church that did this, I'd a) not show up, b) raise cane it was happening in the first place, c) probably leave, and d) ask them to give me back anything I've donated to them at least that year, if not ever.

 

Having moved a couple of times in the last few years and visited several churches, I don't agree with that. Most pastors play it pretty close to the vest. Of course, I was not attracted to churches where the sermon was a replay of Fox and Friends. But still I feel like pastors should be able, for instance, to instruct their congregation that it is Biblical/moral to only vote for Pro-Life candidates and then name names.

 

What do you think would happen if Corporations in this country were not taxed; or at the least had lower taxes than anywhere else in the World?

 

John Kerry

 

Nice.

 

Out of curiosity, how would the sales tax work under such a scenario?

 

Judging from Ireland, protests in the streets over private citizens being required to pay water taxes.

 

I don't think they should be able to name names without giving up their tax-free status.

 

And just to demonstrate this isn't about party lines for me, one of the most prominent recent examples is a pastor in California who is encouraging his congregation to vote for the democratic candidate for Congress, to "punish" the republican candidate for not being pro-life enough. That is entirely political and over the line.