Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit

ABC News ^ | 6/20/08 | RUSSELL GOLDMAN

[XR7]

Few Americans would invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, but that's exactly what Minnesota pastor Gus Booth wanted when he stood behind his pulpit and told his congregation God wanted them to vote Republican.

In an election where candidates openly discuss their faith and are regularly seen in churches, and a time when pastors' sermons lead the politics sections of newspapers, one might be excused for not knowing that it is illegal for a church to endorse or oppose a candidate for president.

But when Booth addressed the members of his Warroad Community Church one Sunday in May and told them, "If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president," he very much knew he was violating the law. He even wrote a letter to the IRS explaining what he had said and challenging the tax collection agency to do something about it.

Churches and other non-profit groups like charities and universities do not have to pay taxes. That exemption, however, comes with a price. Churches, and by extension the pastors who serve them in an official capacity, are not allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates.

Booth, 34, is one of several religious leaders who this year hope to challenge federal law by flouting the regulations about endorsing candidates from the pulpit, a move that could potentially cost them their tax-exempt status, creating financial ruin for many congregations.

The separation of church and state may be one of our democracy's most vaunted values...

Booth and other religious leaders who want to challenge the government believe their rights to freedom of speech and religion, enshrined in the First Amendment, permit them to say whatever they want, wherever they want. Those rights, they say, should trump a 54-year-old tax code...

[HereInTheHeartland]

The state doesn't limit anything. They just say that if you quit being a church and start being a political organization, that different rules apply.

If you want to support political candidates and issues, then do it outside of a church.

In your opinion, why does a Christian based church exist? What is it's purpose?

[sasafras]

“The state doesn't limit anything.”

This is my last post to you - I feel like Im speaking to a rock. Please go back and reread my post - were talking slippery slope not what is currently being enforced. Examples are evident everywhere - are you so naive that you believe that the govt. wouldnt limit a pastors right to quote the bible if it offends homosexuals?? Before you answer perhaps you should do some research on the current conditions in Europe and Canada. Remember slippery slope, slippery slope, slippery slope - if your unfamiliar with the term a dictionary is your friend.

Now post whatever you want - you can have the last word - damn I feel like Im talking to an insubordinate kid.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“are you so naive that you believe that the govt. wouldnt limit a pastors right to quote the bible if it offends homosexuals?? “

You need to understand the difference between proper Biblical teaching; and overtly supporting specific political candidates or issues.
The example that you gave is what a pastor should be doing and I would defend that right strongly.
But if a issue comes on a ballot concerning that that issue; the pastor should not be telling his parishioners which lever to pull.
The church members should be smart enough to make the correct decision on their own.

If the govt crosses the line and tries to limit Biblical teaching from the pulpit, that is another issue entirely.
What has happened in Canada and Denmark is unacceptable.