Posted on 07/04/2013 4:53:56 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
In the show “Courage New Hampshire” the British used their own appointed minister to spy on the people of Courage and nudge them away from revolutionary thoughts.
which are the biggest perpetrators of preaching politics from the pulpit and also allowing candidates use of the podium to spew their liberal hatefulness.
The intent of the Johnson Amendment was to intimidate southern preachers into silence.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted for “violating” it, and there is no real penalty.
The 1st Amendment is to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION!
NOT TO SILENCE PREACHERS FROM DISCUSSING POLITICS!!!!
Stephen baines.
Any relation to Lyndon BAINES johnson?
Re: tax exemption for churches.....
WHY? Why ask PERMISSION?
just pay taxes like everyone else and don’t let the govt have a say in what the pastor can say from the pulpit!
Reading your account of Pastor Muhlenberg’s actions gave me goosebumps.....
Time for today’s pastors to do some soul-searchin’
Authoritarian governments suppress Christianity because it presents another path and way of life.
This path and way of life tells the oppressive government that it is NOT the end all and be all of the peoples existence.
In other words, Christianity says there is a Sovereign above ALL OTHER sovereigns..... above the dictators, kings, potentates, and yes, even above PRES__DENTS.
Remember that one of the slogans of the Revolution was “no king but king Jesus “.
We would do well to remember that ....
Save time and just behead him.
Ping for later
Well, in one sense you’re right. The focus of Christian preaching must always be the Gospel. But which Gospel? The Gospel before Darwin always entailed preaching against public evil, including political evil. Christians were to be salt and light, a testimony to each generation of the high standards of God’s righteousness, and man’s abysmal failure to attain those standards, and thus his urgent need for personal forgiveness and redemption through the blood of the New Covenant shed on the cross by the Son of God, Jesus Christ, on behalf of failed sinners.
After Darwin, and the so-called Enlightenment in general, the intellectual leadership of the churches was besieged with a new and alien worldview, and many responded, even here in America, by simply withdrawing into a safe, pietistic shell, positing a complete dichotomy between spiritual life and public life, a false Gospel that has no prophetic message to sinners at all levels of society, that would probably disapprove of John the Baptist calling out Herod for his adulteries, as a matter of public discourse.
This new half-Gospel opened the door to many significant advances by the essentially atheistic progressive movement, including among many other things the development of tax law which tends to reinforce that false dichotomy, and that certainly is bad enough.
But there are even more dire consequences. Pietism also correlates to the rise of subjectivism, a spiritual beachhead won for atheism by the retreat from public discourse of the preaching of the righteousness of God as a universal standard of moral obligation. Hardly anything could be done to better insulate lost souls from the message they need to hear, than for the preacher to refuse to take on the gross sins of political leadership, no matter the party, as a clear demonstration that every soul, from low to high, must answer to a Holy God.
And there is another dimension, peculiar to the American experience. We do not live under a Roman dictatorship, in which ordinary persons had no particular obligation, other than to obey the law and the whims of their masters, and on occasion to worship Caesar as their god. No, we live in a Republic, in which, at least theoretically, each and every citizen has a duty to participate, at a minimum, through informed voting. Unlike the ancient tyrannies, we hire our public servants. It is our duty before God to be responsible employers, and so we have no choice but to ensure we do not hire those who would avowedly push people into open rebellion against God. A faithful pastor ought not fail to inform his flock of these obligations and how best to fulfill them.
It is our lack of doing this due diligence in which we have failed those who entrusted this Republic to our care, and there will be consequences. Hiding from those consequences by a fresh retreat to pietism will not work, nor will lost souls benefit from a Gospel message that has been watered down to appease an insecure Caesar.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Available at: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/The-Restriction-of-Political-Campaign-Intervention-by-Section-501(c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Organizations
Note the bolded text. "Voter education" could be any ordinary preaching that says, for just one example, that abortion is murder and you shouldn't vote for any candidate that support it. So, to get tax exempt status under 501c3, you'd have to agree to that, and that would be a bargain with the devil himself.
So why do churches incorporate as non-profits under 501c3 in the first place? Because theoretically, their doners can lower their taxable income by giving a portion of it to a recognized tax-exempt organization. But honestly, many congregations, especially small poor ones, are not going to have a problem with this, because many individual doners will be in an income range where the tax benefit for them is slim to nothing.
For large, wealthy churches, with a stable of large doners, 501c3 status is still too high a spiritual price to pay, and they should be willing, at least theoretically, to pay income taxes as required under the law, because all informed Christians know Jesus and the Apostles taught we should render unto Caesar the coin bearing his mark, and further that when we are obligated to pay, He himself will provide that coin, even from the mouth of a fish when necessary. So we do our obligations to the ordinances of man, and we trust him for the net gain to the church coffers. He owns the cattle on a thousands hills, and he will do a far better job protecting your income than IRS loopholes.
For the above reasons and more, some churches have simply sidestepped the problem. They don't organize as 501c3 entities, their pastors have a secular day job, they have no employees, they have a minimal investment in physical property, and their contributions are oriented to meeting immediate needs in the congregation, as opposed to being made to avoid income tax.
Many thanks for that info!
Wondering what certain denominations and groups have done in order to be able to get around the 501c3 limitations (example, rev Jesse Jackson etc and big denominations such as one that has its HQ in Italy).
Did they split off some “departments” into non 501c3’s?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.