Posted on 12/26/2001 5:11:12 PM PST by The Mayor
A growing number of pastors have become fearful of speaking in their churches about government, legislation or politics. Most pastors do not know the laws about what they can and cannot do in their church or pulpit. The current, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) law is vague in some areas concerning this. The Federal government is attempting to clarify this confusion.
The current IRS law classifies churches as 501(c)3, nonprofit organizations. A 501(c)3 classification grants churches their tax exempt status and permits those making contributions to the church, and not receiving goods or services or benefits from their contribution, to deduct their contribution when calculating their federal and state income taxes.
The confusion about what churches can and cannot do, without violating their tax exempt status dates back to 1954. Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the political ban in Section 501(c)3 of the IRS code in a floor amendment to the revenue act of 1954. No one held hearings or developed Congressional records for the need for this ban.
In the IRS codes relating to 501(c)3 organizations it states, "No substantial part of activities consisting of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation". Note that this does not forbid churches or other 501(c)3 organizations from activities of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. It states that a church may not expend a substantial part of a church's activities to do these things. The church can promote propaganda or attempt to influence legislation, to some degree. The confusion comes because the law does not explain how much activity the church can contribute to these two things.
The IRS code specificlly states that the church cannot endorse or oppose a political candidate. They cannot contribute money to a candidate nor endorse a political party. The IRS code very clearly defines these limits. In the past, a pastor could state from the pulpit which candidate he was supporting, as long as he clarified that it was his position, not the church position.
A few years back an IRS ruling determined that a pastor could no longer state his position, even though he made it clear that it was his personal position and not the church's. Current interpretation is that pastors cannot use the pulpit to voice support or opposition of candidates.
In reviewing IRS tax court cases, one must come to the conclusion that it is safe for a church to spend up to 10% of their annual resources on legislative activity. This is not political activity. This will not exceed the "substantial amount" established by the IRS. If a church spends 10 to 15% of their annual resources on legislative activity, they will probably subject themselves to an IRS audit or review. At somewhere around 20%, the IRS will state that the church has exceeded the "substantial amount" classification. I personally do not know of any church that gives even 1% of their budget to legislative activity. Churches should have no concern about taking a position on legislative issues that will affect them or about lobbying for those issues, as long as they do not get near the 20% mark.
There is another section of the 501(c)3 IRS code which non-profit organizations, such as New Yorkers Family Research Foundation (NYFRF), may opt for an (H) option. This is not available to churches. Under the (H) option the organization has the same tax status as a church, but can clearly spend up to 20% of it's annual resources for lobbying activity-not political activity or campaigning.
Congressman Phil Crane of Illonois introduced the Bright Line Act of 2001, to clarify the confusion regarding 501(c)3 status. The purpose of this bill is to clearly define what churches can and cannot do in the area of lobbying and political (campaign) activity. Congressman Crane agrees that various pieces of legislation and candidates in public office certainly affect churches. He beleives churches should have an impact on legislation that will apply to them and on elected officals who will make those decisions. Other Corporations can and do spend money campaigning and lobbying on matters that relate to their businesses.
Congressman Cranes legislation says that a church will get the (H) option that is already available to other non-profit organizations. It eliminates the substantiality test. The bill specifically states that a church may not make lobbying expenditures in excess of an amount equal to 20% of their gross revenue, in any particular year. The bill futher states that a church may devote up to 5% of it's gross revenues on behalf of, or in opposition to, any political campaign or candidate for public office. The bill also states that the aggregate limit of grassroots lobbying and campaigning cannot exceed 20% of the churches gross revenues in any year.
Under this bill a church can spend %5 of it's annual revenue in a given year on campaign related activities and 15% on lobbying activities. Alternatively, the church can spend all 20% on lobbying and nothing on campaigns.
Congressman Cranes bill is HR2931. Mr Crane introduced the bill and is currently seeking co-sponsors for the legislation. You should contact your congressperson and ask them to co-sponsor Mr Cranes bill. There is the possibility that congress will act on this legislation before the end of 2001.
Congressman Jones of North Carolina introduced another bill that is that is similar to Mr Cranes. This legislation, HR 2357 is entitled "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act".
This very brief bill states, "No substantial part of the activities of which is participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The bill does not define what "substantial part of the activities" means. This leaves churches with the same confusion as the current law. The only improvement is that this legislation does not prohibit lobbying or campaigning activities.
A church can be involved in the publishing and distribution of statements, and in the political campaign of a candidate for public office as long as the contribution is not a substantial part of the church's activities. This bill does not clearly define the amount of lobbying activity that the bill allows churches, nor does it give an amount of political campaigning a church can do, other than to say "not a substantial part" which is not defined.
HR 2357 may cause more pastors to do less than they do now, for fear of violating the IRS codes. It provides no clear distinction as to what a church can and cannot do. Most religious leaders and legal minds that deal with religious freedoms favor HR 2931, the Crane bill.
The bottom line to this is money. Preachers are afraid of losing their finincial support or tax exemption. We cannot follow God and mammon both.
First I want to say that on this statement I agree with you 100%. That is one of the biggest problems not only in church but in society as a whole.
The IRS isn't necessarily preventing the talk about politics they make it so damn confusing pastors are afraid to speak out on political issues in fear of losing exempt status.
I am opposed to political activism in the name of Jesus as he did not teach that
As am I, I abhore it! Can we say Hillary Clinton? Her blantant disreguard of the Law makes me sick!
Jesse Jackson is another. The churches need to speakout on these people.
but we cannot on the other hand be silenced when we would expose corruption as John the Baptist did.
Now that is precisely the point, we all should be John the Baptist. I feel I am in many ways, in politics and in the church.
Well, somebody has been taught something by someone that very well may lead them to perdition.
Do you believe you have to have some church tell you what the Bible means and what to believe?
John said, 1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
And Jesus said, John 18:37 "... Jesus answered, ... to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
Notice, it did not say, the voice, that is the teaching, of a church, theologian, Pope, or any other man.
I listen only the voice of Christ. You may have your church teaching, if you like, but the Bible speaks the truth.
If Christians would obey the Bible injunction to be subject to all the ordinances of government, and not seek special government privilege...
Where does it say that?
Try I Tim. 2:1-3, Titus 3:1&2, I Pet. 2:13-19, Rom. 13:1-7 for starters.
I believe you are honest and will see this is clearly what is taught.
The Bible tells us that we should follow the rules of the government, I beleive we should as long as they are governing in the context of the Bible, being of moral character, I ask who in government fits this description?
Certainly the governments in the days of Christ's earthly ministry were not more moral than today's government, and Jesus plainly taught His desciples it was necessary to pay lawful taxes. Matthew 22:16-21 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
(Also Mark 12, and Luke 20)
Mattehw 17:24-27 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
The Bible clearly teaches that all rulers are the basest of men, and that is by God's appointment. Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
So if Jesus taught it was right to pay taxes, it had nothing to do with the morality of the rulers.
Men always seek a way to get around what God demands as righteousness. One of the most common excuses is the wickedness of others.
When Christians learn to trust in God, and not the State, they will find they have both the freedom and power to do God's will.
Hank
This is not true of "every" black church or pastor, but think about Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Malcom X (muslim), Louis Farakahn, the list goes on.
The "reverends" of the left such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton probably do not file as non-profits and that is why they can freely operate in the political sphere. Churches should cancel their non-profit 501 (c) 3 filing. Then they will be free to preach whatever they please. Then they will be free
Last I looked 502C3 was a federal law. By signing in under it you are being subject to the Government. It was created to keep the government from ruling on who could be what by setting tax levels high on politically incorrect groups and low on PC groups.
So long as churches seek tax-exempt status, they should not be allowed to say anything of a political nature, since their politics are wrong.
A perfect example of why tax exemption is necessary. You have decreed that their politics are wrong and have also issued your executive decision that Churches have no right to speak based on their tax status. This is what petty tax bozos were trying to do to the Church when the law was put in place. Like all laws, the morality of the people that enforce them is the only thing protecting the law. For example, the separation of Church and State law was to prevent Government from making any law dictating what Churches could and could not do. Didn't take long for the Government to re-write that to power them to become the final source on just exactly what Churches could and could not do.
Personally, I believe all taxes are nothing more than theft, by a gang that under any other name (than government) would be called thugs. So long as most people believe most people should rule and most people like this arrangement, taxes will continue, and Christians have to decide how God determines they should deal with the situation as Christians.
The language of the religious in this matter is very deceiving. How, exactly, does one "tax religion?" Does a "religion," own property or make moeny, or is it people, who happen to have a religion, or organizations of people with a certain religions. Why should some people, some organizations, and some property be treated differently under the law than others, simply because the people involved have a certain religion?
The problem is that men have confused religion with organizations. Freedom of religion is not freedom to use religion to form organizations and buy property which is then be used to further political and financial purposes tax free while other people with the same kind of property and organizations, not calling them religions, must pay taxes on them. Freedom of religion is freedom to believe, worship, write and speak about what you believe, not freedom to have fanancial and political advantage over those without religion.
Maybe if the property and organization really are religious in nature they should not be taxed, but, if they aren't, there is going to be trouble, and others, especially those of a different faith, or none, are not going to see it the same way. The Biblical admonition to pay taxes was to Christians, to save them trouble, and so they would be the cause of no offense. This is exactly the meaning of the words.
Hank
The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.As it stands, there is nothing limiting the government in its power to tax. Nothing. The sky's the limit. While we're at it, let's repeal the 17th Amendment and give back to the state legislatures their rightful representation in the Senate.
Sure, I'd lose a pretty big deduction. But it would be worth it.
Shalom.
Exactly!
hank
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.