Pastors objecting to IRS rules on political endorsement

[Al_Masetti]

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090702460_pf.html

Not sure if you all want to retain this article on CAF or not. May just want to email it around to selected friends.

Your option.

But it’s interesting to say the least.

Here’s the first paragraph:

– Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

 

[rpp]

I certainly hope that law is overturned. That law is part of the reason why abortion is legal and marriage is threatened.

 

[Bennie_P]

It seems like the ban is a way that the goverment interfers with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We have politicians trying to justify abortion by saying is a moral and religious issue, thus killing the argument that it really is a Human Rights issue. If a politician is running on a platform which is against others faith and people of that faith are silenced even in thier house of worship by the threat of being taxed then that is the same as putting a license fee upon the religion. That is not separtion of Church and State for the state is interfering with the free speech of the members of that religion - a double whammy against the 1st amendment. It seems to be unconstitutional, IMHO. and I don’t think that is what our fore fathers had in mind. Though I oppose the idea of not allowing prayer in schools, I can wrap my mind around that concept, and get around it by sending my children to a Catholic School. But to say people of religion are not allowed to discuss political issues and candidates - it has never made sense.

It appears it may have been a Democrat idea when the Democrat party had thier civil war over integration in order to silence black preachers preaching about intergration from the pulpit. (what happen 54 years ago to involk(sp) such a law,)

The law banning tax-exempt organizations, which include churches, from partisan politics was engineered by then-Senate Minority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson. Its detractors, mostly Christian conservatives, have argued that Johnson was seeking retribution against a non-profit group opposed to his reelection.
usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070129/opledereligion62.art.htm

 

[kentuckyliz]

I for one am glad priests aren’t abusing the pulpit endorsing or opposing candidates for elective office.

 

[Bennie_P]

I for one am glad priests aren’t abusing the pulpit endorsing or opposing candidates for elective office.

Haven’t been to Chicago lately, Hey?

 

[KathleenElsie]

The law as it is currently written is the 100 Billion dollar gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. It is how big government and secularists control those of faith and keep us under their thumbs.

IMHO if it means we can preach and teach our faith on moral issues then we need to start paying taxes.

 

[Mirdath]

It is how big government and secularists control those of faith and keep us under their thumbs.

It’s not just the government and the secularist boogeyman. Plenty of religious people of other faiths don’t particularly care to hear from yours overmuch, and as far as I can tell the sentiment is returned many-fold. As for the ‘under their thumbs’ bit, well… the 80+ percent of the United States that identifies itself as Christian has nobody to blame but itself if it managed to fit all that under someone else’s thumb. Please give that amazing persecution complex a rest, willya?

IMHO if it means we can preach and teach our faith on moral issues then we need to start paying taxes.

This, however, I can agree with If you’re going to get political, that comes with responsibilities as well as perks. Good thing these guys are religious – when the IRS comes a-knockin’, prayer is probably about their only option!

 

[Bennie_P]

It’s not just the government and the secularist boogeyman. Plenty of religious people of other faiths don’t particularly care to hear from yours overmuch, and as far as I can tell the sentiment is returned many-fold. As for the ‘under their thumbs’ bit, well… the 80+ percent of the United States that identifies itself as Christian has nobody to blame but itself if it managed to fit all that under someone else’s thumb. Please give that amazing persecution complex a rest, willya?

This, however, I can agree with If you’re going to get political, that comes with responsibilities as well as perks. Good thing these guys are religious – when the IRS comes a-knockin’, prayer is probably about their only option!

If it wasn’t for preachers getting involved in politics then we would still be English citizens, slavery would be legal and only property owning, literate white men could vote or hold office. The intent was not to have goverment sanction and support of church or religion, not to kill the voice of the people. That is why freedom of speech and freedom of religion was put in the same amendment.

The law was initiated by a white male southerner who at the time wanted to silence his critics any way he could. It was all about power.

 

[Kaninchen]

If it wasn’t for preachers getting involved in politics then we would still be English citizens,

That would be ‘British’ citizens, on the other hand, Canadians are Canadian citizens, Australians are Australian citizens . . . .

slavery would be legal

Slavery was abolished piecemeal in England between 1215 and the 1600’s (there were cases of the courts freeing African slaves brought to England in the 18th century) and in the Empire in 1833.

and only property owning, literate white men could vote or hold office.

The UK, Canada, Australia etc all have universal suffrage.

Just thought I’d point that out.

 

[Mirdath]

If it wasn’t for preachers getting involved in politics then we would still be English citizens, slavery would be legal and only property owning, literate white men could vote or hold office. The intent was not to have goverment sanction and support of church or religion, not to kill the voice of the people. That is why freedom of speech and freedom of religion was put in the same amendment.

Were those preachers endorsing causes or candidates? I think you’ll find they were overwhelmingly the former, and the right to preach on a cause is not under discussion. Further, you imply that it is only due to those preachers that those causes succeeded; they were a big part of some of those causes, to be sure (although I can’t remember hearing about any of them giving a damn about women’s suffrage, say, and it’s arguable that preachers endorsing things have landed us in a lot of messes other political pulpiteers helped get us out of), but it is wholly fallacious to say that that’s what did it.

So basically, you’re comparing apples to oranges, and then on top of that saying that if it weren’t for apples we wouldn’t have fruit – when we’re just talking about the oranges in the first place!

The law was initiated by a white male southerner who at the time wanted to silence his critics any way he could. It was all about power.

Is this supposed to scare me away from it? Eeek, white male Southron! My sainted plantation-owning patriarchal grandpappy! :bigyikes: Mmmmno. I happen to think that sometimes the right thing may be done for the wrong reason.

 

[Bennie_P]

That would be ‘British’ citizens, on the other hand, Canadians are Canadian citizens, Australians are Australian citizens . . . .

Stand corrected

Slavery was abolished piecemeal in England between 1215 and the 1600’s (there were cases of the courts freeing African slaves brought to England in the 18th century) and in the Empire in 1833.

Argument against why we shouldn’t have had our revolution.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound.

The UK, Canada, Australia etc all have universal suffrage.

Just thought I’d point that out.
Your point?

Now where is the argument that preachers haven’t had an influence in politics and that IRS tax exemption is not used to silence people of faith?

 

[pentecostbaby]

Yes, it would be easier if the Church would just tell me how to vote.
But what if I disagreed? What if priests - and pastors - start telling people that they are in a state of mortal sin if they vote for one candidate over another? I mean, “Whatever you hold bound on earth will be bound in heaven …”
I for one do not want to be told - from the altar - that I’m sinning if I vote for one candidate over another.
And what if I disagree? This is a GREAT way to promote religious schism.

 

[Bennie_P]

Yes, it would be easier if the Church would just tell me how to vote.
But what if I disagreed? What if priests - and pastors - start telling people that they are in a state of mortal sin if they vote for one candidate over another? I mean, “Whatever you hold bound on earth will be bound in heaven …”
I for one do not want to be told - from the altar - that I’m sinning if I vote for one candidate over another.
And what if I disagree? This is a GREAT way to promote religious schism.

Religious schism is what got us into this mess and the government fix was to silence religion and calling it a freedom.

 

[Kaninchen]

Argument against why we shouldn’t have had our revolution.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound.

I was just pointing out that, had there not been the preacher ‘revolution’, slavery would have ended sooner, that’s all.

Your point?

Preachers can be a mixed-blessing (depending on one’s perspective, of course).

Now where is the argument that preachers haven’t had an influence in politics and that IRS tax exemption is not used to silence people of faith?

Not my problem.

 

[Christy_Beth]

This reminds me of one of the reasons for the revolution. “No taxation without representation.” Where do we draw the line? Do we want to pay taxes or not? I think that if we want to speak out, then maybe we should pay taxes. Besides, that might get help rid us of those “churces” that are unhealthy. Like, those that could possibly be put under the label of “cult.”

 

[KathleenElsie]

Yes, it would be easier if the Church would just tell me how to vote.
But what if I disagreed? What if priests - and pastors - start telling people that they are in a state of mortal sin if they vote for one candidate over another? I mean, “Whatever you hold bound on earth will be bound in heaven …”
I for one do not want to be told - from the altar - that I’m sinning if I vote for one candidate over another.
And what if I disagree? This is a GREAT way to promote religious schism.

Even if they don’t tell you the exact person to vote for they are telling us what to vote for. The sin does not go away if those behind the pulpit refuse to name name. As long as the issue is there and you have been informed of the situation you are then responsible for the consequences of your actions (read vote).

 

[Al_Masetti]

Pastors need to be able to discuss abortion freely and without fear.

In addition, groups such as Catholic Answers need to be able to discuss politically incorrect subjects without fear of being sued by some “partisan” or investigated by the IRS.

 

[mapleoak]

This reminds me of one of the reasons for the revolution. “No taxation without representation.” Where do we draw the line? Do we want to pay taxes or not? I think that if we want to speak out, then maybe we should pay taxes. Besides, that might get help rid us of those “churces” that are unhealthy. Like, those that could possibly be put under the label of “cult.”

“Taxation without representation” doesn’t apply, since church goers are already taxpayers. Taxing of churches is nothing more than double taxation of the people.
I fail to see how taxation of churches singles and weeds out “cult” churches.