Churches will stage politics-ban protest

[hgc]

From the Los Angeles Times...

Setting the stage for a collision of religion and politics, Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates -- defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-pulpit25-2008sep25,0,6331764.story

Of course they are free to preach politics from the pulpit, as long as they pay their taxes like other business enterprises. But you'll hear the usual hew and cry about "religious freedom." Boo-friggin-hoo. Can we end the tax exemption subsidy of religious enterprise, please?

[I Ratant]

Let them pay taxes.
It's the American way!

[Jackalgirl]

Americans United for Separation of Church and State have something to say about this (http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=h6karoxtc3.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10051&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241), and have even set up a website about it (http://projectfairplay.org/).

In short, they're keeping an eye on the churches who've proclaimed that they'll be doing this -- how, I'm not sure, though I imagine that there will be plenty of guests going to those churches and taking notes. They've already reported several churches to the IRS (http://projectfairplay.org/churches-reported-to-irs), though I am not sure whether there has been any outcome (or what that outcome was) as of yet.

It's worth noting that pastors at several prominent churches have spoken out against the call (http://projectfairplay.org/religious-leaders-speak-out). Also, AU has done some research:

Three former Internal Revenue Service officials have sent a letter to the tax agency charging that the ADF’s actions run afoul of professional standards for tax attorneys that are outlined in a document called “Circular 230.”

Basically, the former IRS officials assert that the ADF is advising its clients to break the law. Not surprisingly, this is frowned upon. Tax attorneys are supposed to help their clients comply with the law, not violate it.

----- "http://blog.au.org/2008/09/23/stunted-stunt-adf-pulpit-freedom-sunday-already-looks-like-a-bust/]"Stunted Stunt: ADF ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday’ Already Looks Like A Bust" (accessed 28SEP08)

You can check out the letter, from Mortimer Caplin, Como Namorato, and Marcus Owens (http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/PFP_Caplin_Drysdale_letter_to_IRS.pdf?docID=3061).

According to AU bloger Rob Boston:

At the recent “Values Voter Summit,” I noticed that the ADF materials promoting Pulpit Freedom Sunday now come with a disclaimer in tiny type asserting that nothing in them is intended to run afoul of Circular 230.
----- "http://blog.au.org/2008/09/23/stunted-stunt-adf-pulpit-freedom-sunday-already-looks-like-a-bust/]"Stunted Stunt: ADF ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday’ Already Looks Like A Bust" (accessed 28SEP08)

Of course, simply stating that something is not intended to "run afoul of Circular 230" does not excuse it when it does.

Edited to add: I'm looking forward to seeing AU's follow up regarding today's promised pulpit endorsements.

[Kopji]

A more interesting part of circular 230 says that the Secretary of the Treasury can disbar attorneys who advocate breaking the IRS laws. (10.50)


§ 10.50 Sanctions.
(a) Authority to censure, suspend, or disbar. The
Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate, after notice
and an opportunity for a proceeding, may censure,
suspend, or disbar any practitioner from practice before
the Internal Revenue Service if the practitioner
is shown to be incompetent or disreputable (within
the meaning of §10.51), fails to comply with any
regulation in this part (under the prohibited conduct
standards of §10.52), or with intent to defraud, willfully
and knowingly misleads or threatens a client or
prospective client. Censure is a public reprimand...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf

[Kopji]

...Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26930425/


The IRS should go after the lawyers of the ADF who have encouraged breaking the law. The pastors would probably get real quiet after that.

[Beerina]

From the Los Angeles Times...



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-pulpit25-2008sep25,0,6331764.story

Of course they are free to preach politics from the pulpit, as long as they pay their taxes like other business enterprises. But you'll hear the usual hew and cry about "religious freedom." Boo-friggin-hoo. Can we end the tax exemption subsidy of religious enterprise, please?


Where in the Constitution does it declare religion shall have no opinion on politics? It has opinions on all vital aspects of life. Politics is one of these, and an important one.


Congress doesn't tax religion because Congress is being nice. They can't tax religion because taxing religion is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

And Congress certainly should not have the power to re-define religion in such a way as to make it harder for people to criticise those very congressmen.



Why do people have trouble grasping this concept? Separation of church and state is a limit on government, not religion.



I am opposed to all forms of censorship for the original and real and only reason: because it is used by those in power to help maintain their power.


Taxing religion because it dare have a say about politics? "Poppycock."

[ravdin]

There's a simple solution here. Endorse whomever you like from the pulpit and then pay taxes like the rest of us.

[Beerina]

A more interesting part of circular 230 says that the Secretary of the Treasury can disbar attorneys who advocate breaking the IRS laws. (10.50)

But this should not be illegal:

Client: How can I violate this law, which I think is unconstitutional, to force an issue up the courts to the Supreme Court?

Lawyer: I also agree it is unconstitutional. You may violate the law by recommending a candidate from the pulpit during a service. I suggest you include detailed reasons while you are doing it. As an officer of the court, I cannot tell you to violate any laws; to do so is your own choice.

Client: Ok. I'll do that, then.



Personally, I would recommend disbarment of attorneys who recommend disbarment of other attorneys because they helped demonstrate a law was unconstitutional. Such people are heroes to be held up to high esteem, while lawyers who try to get them into trouble with technicalities are hideous, anti-freedom thugs that should be no where near the reigns of power.

Right? Right?

[Beerina]

Doesn't anyone wanting to tax religion, or disbar these attorneys, feel even the slightest bit smarmy for wanting to do so?

None of you can claim you despise religion more than me. Not a one. But I despise it as part of the bigger picture, which is the seizing of power by the power hungry. Most of you still don't realize that bigger picture, yet.

And using snarky tricks like taxing those who would challenge people in Congress, or disbaring attorneys who help them challenge people in Congress, definitely should stick out as slimey, regardless of your love or hate of religion or Congress.

[CurtC]

Congress doesn't [not] tax religion because Congress is being nice. They can't tax religion because taxing religion is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

And Congress certainly should not have the power to re-define religion in such a way as to make it harder for people to criticise those very congressmen.

Why do people have trouble grasping this concept? Separation of church and state is a limit on government, not religion.

The reason there's an exemption for churches is not because they're a religion, it's because their exemption falls under the same exemption as other non-profits. And non-profits all have the restriction that they can't advocate for any candidate, regardless of religion.

Simply taxing the income of a church, equally with other organizations, would not be in violation of the separation clause. If a church wants to give up its status as a non-profit, it's free to then stump for its favorite candidates.

[ravdin]

Doesn't anyone wanting to tax religion, or disbar these attorneys, feel even the slightest bit smarmy for wanting to do so?

Well, no. Why shouldn't a church be treated like any other business? If they want to do philanthropy on the side, that's great- corporations do it all the time and I'm all for giving tax breaks for that. If it's truly run as a non-profit, I'm all for giving tax breaks for that too (just like any secular non-profit, such as the JREF, is entitled to). But if you're using your revenue generating, tax exempt organization to be the mouthpiece for particular political candidates, you're essentially forcing all of us to fund that candidate, whether we like it or not.

Your free speech does not oblige me to provide you with a platform with which to express your views. Stop looking for a handout and we no longer have a problem.

[fuelair]

Where in the Constitution does it declare religion shall have no opinion on politics? It has opinions on all vital aspects of life. Politics is one of these, and an important one.


Congress doesn't tax religion because Congress is being nice. They can't tax religion because taxing religion is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

And Congress certainly should not have the power to re-define religion in such a way as to make it harder for people to criticise those very congressmen.



Why do people have trouble grasping this concept? Separation of church and state is a limit on government, not religion.



I am opposed to all forms of censorship for the original and real and only reason: because it is used by those in power to help maintain their power.


"Poppycock."I am for taxing the churches and all their enterprises regardless of what they do or don't do - but I am tired of them using the "you are going to hell if you don't support /vote for X" which frightens the stupid or religious But...into supporting/voting for X even if they would normally be against it ( my wife and I have both had students in our classes crying about being forced by a church to do that re: abortions) (which they were on the intelligent side of).

[Patsy]

Excellent, I think more churches should try this. With the way this country is bleeding money, we can use the extra taxes.

[fuelair]

Doesn't anyone wanting to tax religion, or disbar these attorneys, feel even the slightest bit smarmy for wanting to do so?

None of you can claim you despise religion more than me. Not a one. But I despise it as part of the bigger picture, which is the seizing of power by the power hungry. Most of you still don't realize that bigger picture, yet.

And using snarky tricks like taxing those who would challenge people in Congress, or disbaring attorneys who help them challenge people in Congress, definitely should stick out as slimey, regardless of your love or hate of religion or Congress.

You do realize that the churches (at least all those I have any knowledge of) are trying to pulpitize for republickers, anti-abortionists, those who vote to make church "law" public law and to keep evelotion out of schools (among other stupidities). I want them out of existence, but unable to spew their venom without losing unearned tax exemptions is somewhat acceptable

[KingMerv00]

Congress doesn't tax religion because Congress is being nice. They can't tax religion because taxing religion is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


You are mistaken.

Giving religious organizations special rights over other non-profits would violate the 1st amendment establishment clause.

[GreyICE]

But this should not be illegal:

Client: How can I violate this law, which I think is unconstitutional, to force an issue up the courts to the Supreme Court?

Lawyer: I also agree it is unconstitutional. You may violate the law by recommending a candidate from the pulpit during a service. I suggest you include detailed reasons while you are doing it. As an officer of the court, I cannot tell you to violate any laws; to do so is your own choice.

Client: Ok. I'll do that, then.
Okay, while I disagree that the ban is unconstitutional, and I disagree with your phrasing, I agree with the sentiment. A lawyer needs to be able to tell his client what actions are and are not illegal. A lawyer also should be able, at the request of a client, advise the client what actions might break a certain law.

However, any lawyer who hands out advice in their capacity as a lawyer that, if taken, would result in a breach of the laws of the United States, should be disbarred, regardless of whether or not said law was, in fact, unconstitutional. Period, the end.

The question is whether ADF took actions more like the former than the latter. Given that their website is down right now (DOS?) I have no idea. I desperately hope so though - those unethical morons all losing their law licenses would do the world a service.

[Jackalgirl]

They can't tax religion because taxing religion is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I'm curious -- how does paying taxes prevent the free exercise of the tax-paying entity? I pay taxes. Am I somehow prevented from operating freely?

Just wanted to see why you think that paying taxes is such a burden, and why it would shut down the free operation of a church.

[Jackalgirl]

In the latest missive from Americans United (http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=m12re1k353.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10055&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241), they describe the actions of six churches they've reported to the IRS for violating the politicking rules of tax-exempt organizations:

Bethlehem Baptist Church, Bethlehem, Ga.: According to press accounts, Pastor Jody Hice “urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.”

Fairview Baptist Church, Fairview, Okla.: The Associated Press reported that Pastor Paul Blair “says he told his congregation that as a Christian and as an American citizen, he would be voting for John McCain.”

Warroad Community Church, Warroad, Minn.: Pastor Gus Booth told his congregation, “We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. The most righteous is John McCain.”

Calvary Chapel, Philadelphia, Pa.: The Rev. Francis Pultro told the congregation, “As Christians it’s clear we should vote for John McCain. He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for.”

First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, Calif.: The Rev. Wiley Drake said, “I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors. I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad….According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is not standing up for anything that is tradition in America.”

New Life Church, West Bend, Wisc.: Speaking from the pulpit, Pastor Luke Emrich said, “I’m telling you straight up I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

----- Americans United Urges IRS To Take Action Against Six Churches That Joined Pulpit-Politicking Scheme (http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=m12re1k353.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10055&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241) (Accessed 30SEP08)

For anyone who's interested.

[Jackalgirl]

...And according to the Washington post, the number of law-breaking pastors is 33 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802365_pf.html).

[pgwenthold]

...And according to the Washington post, the number of law-breaking pastors is 33 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802365_pf.html).

Much
Ado
About
Nothing

Millions of churches in the US and only 33 participate?