Calif. church ordered to give IRS info

Get rid of the income tax and those whole mess becomes moot.

Yes, we should scrap the income tax. Our current version is particularly an egregious embarrassment.

This pastor's and any other pastor's freedom of speech is protected if they engage in such speech as a private citizens and do not use houses of worship and church resources to engage in partisan activity or speak as a representative of their church. That's the law, whether you deem it right or wrong.

The line has become increasingly blurred because so many moral issues of concern to religious people have also become highly politically charged (stem cell, abortion, human sexuality, etc.). That's another legacy of the left -- turning every political issue into a moral issue so as to stifle the ability of religious leaders to preach on those issues or else their preaching will be deemed political speech endorsing one political party or another. Most sermons you hear nowadays are nothing but milquetoast. Quite clever and the result of the government intruding in every corner of our lives.

Here's a decent take on the dilemma for churches:

New York -- Church lawyers are laying down some strict guidelines on what religious organizations can -- and cannot -- do in...political campaigning. The key warning is that they must not support or oppose specific candidates, or seem by implication to do so since it would endanger a church's tax exemption [in the United States].

Attorneys for the country's two largest Christian groups -- Baptists and Roman Catholics -- have issued lengthy instructions for church organizations on avoiding partisan political activity....

The Internal Revenue Service "has a newfound enthusiasm for scrutiny of religious organizations," says Mark E. Chopko, general counsel of the U.S. Catholic Conference. Citing restrictions laid down in the IRS code on tax exemptions for religious organization, he advises: "During an election campaign, exempt organizations remain free to address issues of concern to them and to their membership.... However, such discourse must focus on issues and not personalities."

Oliver S. Thomas, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, advises that churches, to avoid jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, must heed the following rules: Don't support or oppose a candidate directly or indirectly, whether in a sermon, church newsletter, sample ballot or by financial means. Avoid pejorative labels when mentioning a candidate by name.

Don't provide volunteers, mailing lists, publicity, nor distribute or display campaign literature on church premises or provide free use of facilities unless made available equally to all parties and candidates.

However, both Catholic and Baptist advisories note that churches may hold non-partisan public forums or debates where all candidates have a chance to state their views and distribute their literature.

The sponsoring church organization, however, must not present its views on the topics discussed. Thomas says: "It is advisable for the organization, in introducing a candidate, to state clearly and emphatically that the views of the candidate are not necessarily the views of the church and no endorsement is intended by the candidate's presence."

Nevertheless...religious organizations have a constitutional right to take sides on political issues, so long as their views aren't explicitly applied for or against specific candidates.

"In reality, participation in the public debate on important issues inevitably overlaps with positions taken by certain candidates," Chopko observes. "Nonetheless, issue-oriented speech is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution, and is entirely proper."

Also, church employees and officials may participate freely in the political campaigning as individuals, providing it is made clear they are not acting as representatives of the church. "If a diocesan or parish official speaks at a rally supporting a particular candidate, he should avoid being introduced in his official capacity," Chopko says.

Thomas also stresses that point, adding that if a minister is involved, and mention is made of his church, there should also be a disclaimer making clear he is not speaking on the church's behalf.

"Separating the minister's role as an individual voter from his role as a church leader is always difficult," Thomas says, adding: "A minister should never endorse a candidate from the pulpit, even though he might insist he is speaking in his individual capacity."

George W. Cornell, Associated Press

This pastor's and any other pastor's freedom of speech is protected if they engage in such speech as a private citizens and ~~do not~~ use houses of worship and church resources to engage in partisan activity or speak as a representative of their church.

The Supreme Law of the Land is clear indeed:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the law, whether you deem it right or wrong.

Right or wrong the Constitution is the bottomline, it is the Constitution that is being violated in this.

Here's a decent take on the dilemma for churches:

There is no delima for the church or for the individual citizen. The real issue is whether or not we as citizens of the United States intend to see the clear prohibition against the making of federal law reducing the scope of freedom of speech and press enforced.

As American citizens it is our responsibility and duty to assure that representation that is necessary to the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution where government clearly fails to abide.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785) Query 18
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

"Actually, the "price" we pay for civilization-- true civilization-- is nothing more, and nothing less, than the inconvenience attendant upon scrupulously respecting our neighbors' rights."
-Peter E. Hendrickson

I visited this church once for a christening. I would never set foot in it again.

Why should this situation even arise at all?

The legislation known as the FairTax removes this from the roll of government activity and no suchm nuisance would be happening.

As has often been said: It's time for the FairTax!!!

Seems the UCC had many D's speak at their digs before elections.

"If the IRS prevails, it will have a chilling effect on the practice of religion in America."

You mean the practice of socialism, hiding behind the guise of religion, don't you, Comrade?

Regas is/was no "pastor", we was a political hack leading the All Saints Political Action Committee. Nor is Bacon, his successor.

Any shrieking leftist high profile issue from baby-vacuuming to criminal rights etc.. regularly make the bulk of the "sermon" content /sarc. Politics is their religion and they prove it by their actions/words. Political diatribes are not sermons and this is no church.

I live in the area.....Regas has quite a history pissing on his Linda Vista area neighbors as the resident limousine lib enjoying his 4 million dollar house.