Posted on 01/27/2012 9:03:29 AM PST by ReligiousLibertyTV
If 501(c)(3) organizations were suddenly able to engage in partisan politicking, and donors were able to give on a tax-deductible basis, donors could ostensibly deduct currently non-deductible political donations simply by funneling these monies through churches. Churches would not only pass the collection plate for their religious mission, but churches would also be able to use these tax-deductible donations on behalf of particular candidates.
Large churches could bankroll entire political campaigns and receive favorable treatment from those who support them. Politicians could visit with church pastors and lobby them for their campaign support. The lines of mutual respect between church and state could be erased as churches become nothing more than overt political mouthpieces during campaign season.
Because of the tax advantages, it is not inconceivable that churches would become a primary venue for gathering votes as political goals were interwoven with spiritual teachings. A politician who ignored this new reality would be at a distinct disadvantage.
In response, many congregations might, as a matter of policy, refuse to allow the politicking from their pulpits but may perceive that they lose the favor of politicians who receive their support elsewhere. In churches that permitted politicking, congregants of different political persuasions than their clergy might feel alienated and leave.
As it now stands, churches and charities are welcome to speak truth to power on the issues that matter – from opposing human trafficking, to lobbying for workplace accommodation for religious employees, to pursuing morality and justice. Religious organizations just cannot support or oppose particular candidates or political parties. This is a good thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at religiousliberty.tv ...
The Mormon church already does this, they just do it through their businesses and fake PACs. The LDS excel at money laundering. They also preach from the pulpit as it were - I heard it on more than one occasion even though they deny it.
Liberal churches campaign for Democrats from the pulpit all the time and no one ever says a thing about it. Before scaring off conservatives over something that LBJ did to censor pastors howzabout going after the leftists who preach partisan politics from the pulpit?
Finally, the churches should never have been forced to be classified non-profits. This was a political move by LBJ to shut up churches that did not like him. Also, other groups that fall into the non-profit category do not enjoy the same constitutional privileges as churches. Just like regulations on guns restrict the second amendment, restrictions on what a church can or cannot say is a direct violation of the first amendment.
Liberal politicians have a longtime bond to liberal churches that promote them and their liberation Marxism. Tax exemption and attempts by the government to silence churches has done little to stop them. Let a conservative church promote a candidate that reflects Christian positions on small government, culture and family, and the left will scream for the tax man to come. Attempts by the government to silence free speech in churches is part of the broader attempt to silence conservatism and control political education.
Wrong. If a candidate is immoral, unethical, unbiblical, etc., in a particular church's opinion, then the pastor and/or the church has every right from God to say so and to advise not supporting that candidate. They weren't throwing Christians to wolves in the coliseum because they were saying nice things about the emperors.
Congress has no right to tell churches what to look like, what to practice, or what to say. All of this is covered in the first amendment which merely reflects rights that come to us from God.
God WANTS us to speak out about what is wrong and what is right be it about behavior or about an individual.
My pastor speaks out on a wide variety of cultural/political issues (like homosexuality and aborition). His standard line is go ahead, take away our non-profit status, if keeping it is your biggest worry you have much bigger problems that THAT.
King George V would absolutely agree, as he lost many of his North American colonies to a movement organized to a large extent in churches.
To reach people politically yo go where your peers are.
If you drink, go to bars, if you are an athlete go to gyms and parks, if you are primarily in religiouse outreach got to your place of worship.
“Campaigning for Candidates from the Pulpit is a Bad Idea”
Only if you are a white, Christian church.
Churches are not forced to be non-profit. They can renounce (churches, for whatever reason, are automatically considered non-profit without first having to apply for that status) their non-profit status & say whatever they want. Some have done just that here in Ohio.
...restrictions on what a church can or cannot say is a direct violation of the first amendment.
I disagree. If you accept/agree to non-profit status you accept the restrictions. Give up your tax exemption & say whatever you want.
NO. A tax on the church is a restriction on the church. The reason this non-profit crap exists is the 16th amendment. There should have always be an exemption for church donations in the tax code, not a punitive “keep you mouth shut, or we will tax your donations, your buildings, and your activities” that we are forced into now.
But not for other non-profits? I'm not for giving churches special rights others do not receive.
But the Bill of Rights does:
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.
These restrictions on freedom of speech by religious institutions are contrary to the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion from government interference.
Except there's not a single right in the Bill of Rights that is absolute.
Especially when churches have a choice -- tax exemption (agree to restrictions), no tax exemption (say what you want).
The power to tax is the power to destroy. The choice you present is:
A/ Give up free speech
OR
B/ Prepare for destruction
In essence, the result is massive government fines (taxes) as a penalty for engaging in non-approved religious expression.
Does that really sound like freedom of religion to you?
So, are you saying that being a church in the United States is like being a dhimmi in a Muslim state, i.e. you can exist and do what you like as long as you pay the “Jizya”? Is religious freedom not important to you?
I like how you think.
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.