Trying to form my conscience on this issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter jredden92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mean, who would be better suited to care for the poor and end world hunger than a candidate that has no problem with healthy, innocent babies being dismembered with enough precision to leave usable organs unharmed.
I had to laugh. Not because its funny, but that its what people actually believe.
 
However, the article is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and that is making political statements by Church officials (deacons, priests, bishops) on Church property.

And as a matter of fact, the Baptist church in Washington D.C. has nearly been reduced to that level. However, rather than violate the restriction, they have turned to the Court for redress.

The IRS rule does not make a complete denial of the ability to make political statements, but rather restricts them, for example in the Church parking lot, to prevent flyers supporting/rejecting a specific candidate on windshields.

“The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41 PDF, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.” From irs.gov.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top