Almost 1,600 Psators Defy IRS, preach politics from the Pulpit

[BroomWagon]

I have heard this discussed on Catholic radio, Glenn Beck and Protestant Radio but had not heard it discussed here, so indeed, this is a big recent topic in religious circles. Rather than having our preconceived ideas on this, I think we should at least read what this is actually about.

"Almost 1,600 Pastors Defy IRS, Preach Politics From Pulpit"

The registered pastors committed to preach sermons that present biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates. In so doing, they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom to engage in religious expression from the pulpit despite an Internal Revenue Service rule known as the Johnson Amendment that activist groups often use to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status.

“Pastors should decide what they preach from the pulpit, not the IRS,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “It’s outrageous for pastors and churches to be threatened or punished by the government for applying biblical teachings to all areas of life,

lifenews.com/2012/10/08/almost-1600-pastors-defy-irs-preach-politics-from-pulpit/

See the emboldened above. Lyndon Johnson early in his political career before he was even President I believe had some problem with some preachers in Texas and so worked on this legislation as a way to “get back at them” if I understand it correctly. Also, I think they said on Relevant Radio that Johnson’s intent may not be exactly how this ruling has been written years ago.

These preachers and as far as I know, seem to mostly or all be Protestants are in fact daring the IRS to take them to court on this issue. I have heard that some of these Preachers have even sent their sermons to the IRS to see if they received a reaction so this law can be tested in court and in their opinion, seen as unconstitutional.

So, a lot to this story but as I said, I think it’s a story that has been all over the Christian press.

If this story has already been covered, please feel free to delete this story or merge it.

---

Another report: wnd.com/2012/10/1600-christians-to-irs-stay-out-of-pulpit/

 

[utah_rose]

Good for them. I feel sorry for most of our Catholic priests tip toeing around the issues. I have yet to hear one say “don’t be voting for a candidate thats pro-abortion or against marriage”. I think that most of them are afraid of losing their congregation which sadly are for the charisma of the candidate rather then what they and their party stand for.

 

[Tigg]

Good for them. I feel sorry for most of our Catholic priests tip toeing around the issues. I have yet to hear one say “don’t be voting for a candidate thats pro-abortion or against marriage”. I think that most of them are afraid of losing their congregation which sadly are for the charisma of the candidate rather then what they and their party stand for.

I think a great culling is about to happen…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think a great culling is about to happen…

Why?

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Well, I always thought that this law seemed immoral from the beginning. What is the IRS going to do, send people to Churches to spy on them? Is it going to pay off members of the congregation to be informants? …Of course, I guess it doesn’t much matter if your pastor is going to send transcripts of his sermons to the IRS.

Anyways, I’m glad they’re challenging the tax-exempt rule. Why should we have to pay taxes based off of what we preach? Doesn’t that sound like the definition of wires attached?

“Well, we won’t tax you if you don’t preach about things we don’t want you to”.

The pastors should just tell them to go to Hell. And maybe coming from a pastor’s mouth that might scare them back into a Church themselves…

Also… do Muslim Imams suffer from this? I hear that a lot of them are highly political in what they say. And whether they say it in English, Arabic, or Farsi, shouldn’t the law apply equally to them as it is currently? [Because I guarantee you the law isn’t being applied evenly to them]

 

[Tigg]

Why?

Some are of the opinion that a 501 (c) 3 amounts to hush money. Given the signs of the times and the religious persecution taking place right before our eyes, it will surely be harder for the clergy to continue to be ambiguous and soft. Are they going to preach the gospel of Christ or the gospel of the State?

“He who is not with me is against me…” Matt 12:30

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Some are of the opinion that a 501 (c) 3 amounts to hush money. Given the signs of the times and the religious persecution taking place right before our eyes, it will surely be harder for the clergy to continue to be ambiguous and soft. Are they going to preach the gospel of Christ or the gospel of the State?

“He who is not with me is against me…” Matt 12:30

It seems to me that the Church(s) would preach the Gospel of Christ, even if they had to render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s. The early Church preached the Gospel of Christ, even under the penalty of death. Is it possible that partisanship is not a part of that Gospel, but a part of the gospel of the state?

 

[aragonjohn1]

I have heard this discussed on Catholic radio, Glenn Beck and Protestant Radio but had not heard it discussed here, so indeed, this is a big recent topic in religious circles. Rather than having our preconceived ideas on this, I think we should at least read what this is actually about.

"Almost 1,600 Pastors Defy IRS, Preach Politics From Pulpit"

lifenews.com/2012/10/08/almost-1600-pastors-defy-irs-preach-politics-from-pulpit/

See the emboldened above. Lyndon Johnson early in his political career before he was even President I believe had some problem with some preachers in Texas and so worked on this legislation as a way to “get back at them” if I understand it correctly. Also, I think they said on Relevant Radio that Johnson’s intent may not be exactly how this ruling has been written years ago.

These preachers and as far as I know, seem to mostly or all be Protestants are in fact daring the IRS to take them to court on this issue. I have heard that some of these Preachers have even sent their sermons to the IRS to see if they received a reaction so this law can be tested in court and in their opinion, seen as unconstitutional.

So, a lot to this story but as I said, I think it’s a story that has been all over the Christian press.

If this story has already been covered, please feel free to delete this story or merge it.

---

Another report: wnd.com/2012/10/1600-christians-to-irs-stay-out-of-pulpit/

like a boss; the Boss.

Shalom Y’ALL

 

[_Abyssinia]

Their are predominately Black Churches where a candidate speaks. Why are they given a pass by the IRS but Catholic Priests can not endorse a candidate?

Valerie Jarrett spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and gave a partison speech in where she said jobs of teachers, police and firefighters, ‘are now in jeopardy because Congress — well, let me be specific — because [of] the Republicans in Congress’

Rev Raphael Warnock criticized Newt Gingrich during the Church service and there was a voter registration drive

Have not heard of this Church being investigated for violating IRS rules

 

[Tigg]

It seems to me that the Church(s) would preach the Gospel of Christ, even if they had to render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s. The early Church preached the Gospel of Christ, even under the penalty of death. Is it possible that partisanship is not a part of that Gospel, but a part of the gospel of the state?

CCC 1901: If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.

**The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, **provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

CCC 1901: If authority belongs to the order established by God

Authority belongs to the order established by God…

I believe you’re seeing ‘regimes’ wrong. The ‘regime’ of the US includes several parties. The Church is not teaching one party over another. If we remove all parties and go with one, we have just changed from a democracy.

Now, let’s return to the ‘hush money’. I assume this is referring to the tax exempt status that Churches have. If partisan politics were truly a message of God, what example does a Church give not to give that message based on it possibly losing it’s tax exempt status? The early Church gave the Gospel message knowing there were penalties of death. In the same way, Churches of today would have a responsibility to give the Gospel message and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Partisan politics is not the Gospel of Jesus. Partisan politics is a creation of men.

 

[Godfollower]

No one forced the Catholic Church to apply for tax-exempt status. It freely chose to do so. Having done so, it is required to abide by the rules of the tax-exempt program. Those include:

• Its purpose must qualify for the exemption – it has to be charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals;
• Its earnings must be limited to the organization and its activities – they can’t go to any private individual as such (shareholders, the founder’s family members, etc.);
• It cannot engage in political activities – it can’t intervene on behalf of or against any candidate; it can’t donate money to a political party or candidate; etc. (though it can engage in non-political activities like voter education guides and public forum activities such as candidates’ debates);
• It cannot engage in substantial lobbying (though it can engage in policy educational isses); and
• It has to make certain reports every year about its financial activities to prove that it really is non-profit.

If you don’t like the restrictions, don’t apply for tax-exempt status. But then your donors can’t deduct their donations on their taxes (since that’s what tax-exempt status means).

 

[marci]

I hope our priests take a lesson from our fellow christians. The catholic church in America should give up it’s tax exemption and start preaching the truth from the pulpit. What is more important, the souls of the congregation or paying tax?

Yes, there will be less money to pay for a plethera of things, but better lacking in the material than bankrupted spiritually.

How many Saints and Martyrs died speaking and defending the truth, and yet we cower at the feet of the IRS. Shameful.

 

[Tigg]

Authority belongs to the order established by God…

I believe you’re seeing ‘regimes’ wrong. The ‘regime’ of the US includes several parties. The Church is not teaching one party over another. If we remove all parties and go with one, we have just changed from a democracy.

Now, let’s return to the ‘hush money’. I assume this is referring to the tax exempt status that Churches have. If partisan politics were truly a message of God, what example does a Church give not to give that message based on it possibly losing it’s tax exempt status? The early Church gave the Gospel message knowing there were penalties of death. In the same way, Churches of today would have a responsibility to give the Gospel message and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Partisan politics is not the Gospel of Jesus. Partisan politics is a creation of men.

Either I’m completely missing your point, or there’s really no argument here…or are we splitting hairs?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I hope our priests take a lesson from our fellow christians. The catholic church in America should give up it’s tax exemption and start preaching the truth from the pulpit. What is more important, the souls of the congregation or paying tax?

Yes, there will be less money to pay for a plethera of things, but better lacking in the material than bankrupted spiritually.

How many Saints and Martyrs died speaking and defending the truth, and yet we cower at the feet of the IRS. Shameful.

What if the Church is preaching truth from the pulpit already and it’s personal views of truth that need to change?

I’ve found support for all Church teachings in scriptures; however, I can find no support for aligning the Church with one political party over another.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Either I’m completely missing your point, or there’s really no argument here…or are we splitting hairs?

Is it possible that the Church is giving the fullness of the Gospel already? Maybe the Church doesn’t agree with mixing political with spiritual, to a degree of supporting one party over another.

 

[Marauder]

The Church is neither Democrat or Republican. The Church itself likes certain aspects of both platforms and doesn’t like others. Yes some should be weighted a lot higher then others, but it is the job of the Church to educate, not to dictate. It shouldn’t be picking a particular side in any race it should be preaching its morals pure and simple. It should be in the job of creating an informed/educated conscience.

Chances are that anyone that speaks from the pulpit against Obama explicitly will be investigated by the IRS. Anyone that speaks against Romney will get off scott free.

Archbishop Chaput clearly says it best:

The more we transfer our passion for Jesus Christ to some political messiah or party platform, the more bitter we feel toward his Church when she speaks against the idols we set up in our own hearts. There’s no more damning moment in all of Scripture than John 19:15: “We have no king but Caesar.” The only king Christians have is Jesus Christ. The obligation to seek and serve the truth belongs to each of us personally. The duty to love and help our neighbor belongs to each of us personally. We can’t ignore or delegate away these personal duties to anyone else or any government agency.

• Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[BroomWagon]

The Church is neither Democrat or Republican. The Church itself likes certain aspects of both platforms and doesn’t like others. Yes some should be weighted a lot higher then others, but it is the job of the Church to educate, not to dictate. It shouldn’t be picking a particular side in any race it should be preaching its morals pure and simple. It should be in the job of creating an informed/educated conscience.

Chances are that anyone that speaks from the pulpit against Obama explicitly will be investigated by the IRS. Anyone that speaks against Romney will get off scott free.

Archbishop Chaput clearly says it best:

When I came to voting age, there were things about the Democrats I admired. Unfortunately, it seems they are becoming extreme and fair enough, a lot of liberals/leftists would say the same about the other party.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Archbishop Chaput clearly says it best:

Those duties cannot be delegated away, yet the problems are so large the bishops have said that government assistance cannot be excluded. It’s not a complete one way or the other, on any issue. We, as Christians, have to change hearts as well as seek changes in how the government works, or legislates. Without the change of hearts, other changes will never happen.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Authority belongs to the order established by God…
**
I believe you’re seeing ‘regimes’ wrong. The ‘regime’ of the US includes several parties. The Church is not teaching one party over another. ** If we remove all parties and go with one, we have just changed from a democracy.
**
Now, let’s return to the ‘hush money’. I assume this is referring to the tax exempt status that Churches have. If partisan politics were truly a message of God, what example does a Church give not to give that message based on it possibly losing it’s tax exempt status? The early Church gave the Gospel message knowing there were penalties of death. In the same way, Churches of today would have a responsibility to give the Gospel message and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
**
Partisan politics is not the Gospel of Jesus. Partisan politics is a creation of men.

I just wanted to point out how in this post you appear to support democracy, while at the same time offering at least 2 arguments against democracy. I just find that fascinating.

I’m not saying you support theocracy. But, your post could easily have been made by someone who did. Just sayin’.

Feel free to expound on your politics, I’m most interested…