Posted on 07/25/2014 6:23:09 AM PDT by LeoMcNeil
The IRS recently settled a case against it brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). As part of the settlement, the IRS has agreed to monitor church sermons for political content. The suit was filed because FFRF apparently did not like an event called Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Apparently once a year a number of pastors preach on political topics, presumably to rebel against the never enforced Federal prohibition on 501(c)(3) political activities. Technically it is illegal for tax exempt non-profits to engage in political activities, presumably this includes commenting on politics from the pulpit. To date there isn’t a single case of IRS enforcement since the ban was created in 1954.
There is a long history of church political involvement in the United States. Churches supported the abolitionist movement even before independence. In the 20th century, progressives specifically targeted churches to push for radical social change. Mainline protestant denominations largely destroyed themselves with political social justice. Churches were the center of the civil rights movement, they’re currently the center of the pro-life movement. There are leftist churches pushing socialism, such as President Obama’s old church. There are others pushing feminism and homosexual special rights. Others promote conservative social values, opposing abortion and homosexuality. Both political parties use churches for their campaigns. Go to any inner city and you can bet you’ll see candidates endorsed at major black churches. The same is true in conservative churches.
The IRS has never enforced this provision, which means it’s never faced appellate review. Odds are, the prohibition of church involvement in politics wouldn’t be able to withstand a Constitutional challenge. The people are free to exercise their religion, pastors have the right to speak freely under the 1st amendment. There is no compelling reason for the government to restrict this activity. In light of recent decisions allowing corporations the right to speak (Citizens United) and closely held corporations to exercise religious freedom (Hobby Lobby) it’s a safe bet a Constitutional challenge would result in the law being overturned.
The IRS knows that, which is why it hasn’t enforced the law in 60 years. From a practical standpoint, do we really want government micromanaging sermons and church activity? At what point does a sermon on Leviticus 18:22 become a political sermon? It is absurd to think of the state sitting in the last row jotting down which sentences were political and which ones were not. The battle over what a political statement is would rage. All of this over a tax exempt status for churches, which have never been subject to taxation in our nation’s history. You want to talk about separation of church and state, the church not being subject to taxation makes it completely separate from the state.
The IRS isn’t going to enforce their settlement with the FFRF. They will once again ignore Pulpit Freedom Sunday, just like they have the last several years. The fact is, the Democrats need church involvement in campaigns and political activities just as much as Republicans. They aren’t going to risk a Constitutional challenge to the law. As for the church, it shouldn’t ruin the Lord’s Day with silly gimmicks like Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Pastors should preach the word of God and apply it to our personal and national lives as they see fit. They shouldn’t worry about the government revoking tax status, they should worry about accurately preaching God’s word. As it stands, the government isn’t going to enforce a law that both parties understand is unconstitutional.
That was pointed out to me and it was an oversight. My bad. You are entirely correct.
How nice of them. I guess they’ve hired too many new public servants who really have nothing better to do.
Of interest relative to this thread:
The issue with the radicals, is that could be taken as conspiracy to murder, if they really were concretely shown to preach it.
Plus, isn’t pogrom a violation of 1st Amendment Rights for someone else anyways.
OK I want some of the drugs You have;)
It is not a violation of the 1st since it’s completely voluntary. No one has to accept the benefits of a 501(c)(3) organization.
All this anger is more than justified but misplaced. You should be angry with Congress. They are 100% responsible for the tax law. The tax law is an abomination and a scandal. And year after year they do noting but make it worse.
The IRS will claim a technicality as a mosque is not a church.
The “Black Church” is Democrat precinct headquarters!
> Nobody puts a gun to the heads of church members to take
> the tax deduction. If they turn it down the Federal
> government has no leverage on them.
Oh, right, I forgot that I now live in an anti-God, anti-Christ, totalitarian-collectivist, atheist country that no longer honors the “Nature’s God” mentioned in its founding documents, and that all riches and honor belong to the mighty Fedzilla, the Supreme Proprietor of all wealth from whatever source, and for whatever use.
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood continues, not only to enjoy tax-deductible status, but more than $500 million in annual government subsidies to murder prenatal infants and promote the corruption of our youth.
The point soared over your head at 30,000 feet.
Well, you beat me to it. The first thing I thought was, ‘Will the black churches have an exemption?”
Since it is the IRS doing the monitoring, I expect more scandalous behavior on the part of this arm of the DNC.
> The point soared over your head at 30,000 feet.
Well, I am rather short, but not that short.
I get your point, but churches have historically been exempt from taxes owing to the respect the nations founders had for God. There were no 501-3c corporations when the country was founded. This is a relatively recent tax code fiction that assumes the government owns the fruits of your labor.
Next, they will be claim they ‘couldn’t monitor them, because they were burned down by right winger racists.’
An aside: Once Bill Clinton remarked about how he felt so bad about ‘black churches being burned” and he related that personally to the times when he grew up in Arkansas and had to live through the shame of black churches in Arkansas being burned by white racists. The only problem with this is that during Bill Clintons ‘growing up time’ in Arkansas, THERE WERE NO BLACK CHURCHES burned up.
The IRS publicly admitted in 2012 they don’t have the right to remove tax exemptions for political speech. The only people who believe they do are the liberal pastors of conservative congregations.
Exactly! And the people we should be furious with is Congress. They write 100% of the laws the IRS enforces. And they pay 100% of their salaries.
Never vote for an incumbent.
I disagree with this glib assumption. I think most activist victim-minority churches will indeed endorse a candidate; but conservatives believe in work and accountability, personal responsibility and the rule of law. They are greatly less likely to risk their churches' tax-exempt standing by breaking a well-understood law.
"The... Democrats need church involvement in... political activities just as much as Republicans. They aren’t going to risk a Constitutional challenge to the law.... the government isn’t going to enforce a law that both parties understand is unconstitutional."
Again, hopelessly naive. This author has never heard of the concept "selective enforcement."
The flip is how does one disagree with that interpretation and not get involved in political commentary.
I myself have given a message on Lev 18: 22 to make the point that if we approve sodomy in America, the LAND will be defiled and vomit us out, and God told the Jews if they allowed it, they would lose the land God gave them. Romans 1:32 tells us that we are guilty of sin if we approve of the sin even though we didn't commit the sin. I thought it might make the pastor nervous, but apparently he had no problem with it. Our whole revolution was preached from the early American church and many pastors fought in the war. To make some subjects off limits is to limit God and I don't think you can do that. I would welcome an investigation because it would inevitably be stopped by the courts.
It would also be a nightmare for Islam. Can you imagine a Christian church getting sanctioned for preaching against abortion and sodomy, and a Mosque getting away with preaching the assault on women, or the stoning of sinners? How about the overthrow of the government? Installing Sharia Law? Is Islam more "tolerant" of sodomy?
If it's in the book, it's in the book and I will preach on it.
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.