Muzzling Conservative Pastors

I know some of you out there actually harbor this fantasy that Christian conservatives want to subsume the government and convert it into a happy theocracy for Jesus, but you're wrong.

Because of your illusion, you are growing ever bolder in your efforts to deny Christians their freedoms of religion and expression – both of which freedoms, you should note, also remain firmly in the First Amendment, along with the sacred Establishment Clause.

Don't get me wrong – I'm all for the Establishment Clause, but I'm sickened by the courts', politicians' and our post-modern culture's distortions of its meaning. The provision was inserted into the First Amendment to augment and strengthen, not emasculate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause – as I've observed before. But today, in the name of safeguarding our religious freedoms, government and society are smothering them.

So, it's no surprise that on Wednesday, Congress handily rejected (178-239) the Houses of Worship Political Speech Act (H.R. 2357), which was designed to remove the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke a church's tax-exempt status for engaging in "partisan" political activity.

You might find it distasteful for pastors to share their political opinions from their pulpits (and elsewhere), but that doesn't mean the Establishment Clause precludes it. How could the issuance of a pastor's political opinion – even a pastor whose church enjoys tax-exempt status – lead to the establishment of a national religion? You couldn't construct a slippery- slope scenario under which this is remotely conceivable.

Let's consider a hypothetical. Assume the pastors to which these restrictions apply are mostly conservative Christian ones – probably a safe assumption. Further assume that some of them really get after it, telling their congregations that a vote for Democrats is a vote for Satan. (No offense to Satan intended here.) Just kidding!

Finally, assume that the unthinking, mind- numbed congregation marches in lockstep to the voting booths and ushers in a new era of bliss (Republicans dominate both branches and appoint the third). How could this ever lead to a national religion?

The pastors, under the feared scenario, are not even talking about religion – they're talking about politics. How can their advocacy of political positions or candidates be taken to be advocacy, much less the establishment, of a national religion?

But even if they were advocating a full-blown Christian theocracy, so what? That would make them wrong, politically and theologically, in my opinion, but not subject to censorship.

Nor is it relevant that churches are indirectly connected to the federal government through their tax-exempt status. They have absolutely no governmental power. They could not "establish" their religion, even if they were foolish enough to want to. Ever. It's ludicrous to suggest they could. They are merely advocating things – not decreeing them. Pastors with differing opinions should be free to advocate the opposite things – and they do, by the way, mostly with impunity (a former IRS commissioner recently admitted to selective enforcement during the Clinton years).

In the meantime, under these false pretenses, pastors, whose business is to lead on moral issues, are precluded from doing so to the extent they are muzzled on politics, because government and politics have an enormous impact on the moral fabric of our society. That is, if you silence a pastor on political issues, you are limiting his ability to influence society morally – as well as his freedom of expression and religion.

Shouldn't a pastor, for instance, have a right to speak out against same-sex marriages, gay adoption or polygamy? Well, those issues are hot in many political races these days, such as in the Massachusetts, Florida and Arizona gubernatorial races. Would pastors in those states (note we're not even talking about the federal government here) be subject to IRS condemnation for promoting traditional values – because the IRS would deem it disguised partisan campaigning?

But what if the pastors actually endorsed the candidates opposing those measures? So what? Their tenuous connection to the government (tax-exempt status) invests them with no power to establish their religion.

Quit mindlessly falling for the nonsensical conventional wisdom on these issues. Partisan pastors don't threaten our religious liberties, but rogue IRS agents do.

The practical effect of allowing this infernal law to stand is that unelected government bureaucrats will continue to have arbitrary power over the free speech and free exercise rights of our churches. If you don't like campaigning pastors, your remedy is to leave the church, not to gag it.

David Limbaugh, an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Mo., is the author of the pull-no-punches exposé of corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, "Absolute Power." Personally signed copies are now available in WorldNetDaily's online store.

The ostensible dilema of whether or not a church dabbling into politics should remain tax exempt is a problem created by the establishment of the income tax and the IRS. The income tax is an inferior and oppressive form of taxation that should have never been introduced into our government. It's time to switch over to a tax system appropriate for a free people and do away with a system that has allowed the government to wield the sword of the IRS to bully people in unconstitutional ways and to pad the pockets of pals via the tax code.

Go to www.fairtax.org and at least sign up for the e-mail updates. Also, there's still time to register for the annual Americans for Fair Taxation 2002 National Convention coming up November 8-10 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Don't just gripe about the IRS every April 15th; Do something!

Tax exempt status obviously saves Churches a lot of money, but it also allows the government to dictate what can and cannot be said in a house dedicated to truth and to the glory and leadership of God. Tax-exempt surrenders to the government, more power than God.

Churches should refuse their tax exempt status and trust God to make up the difference. Where did the idea that God must go begging to the government come from? It sure didn't come from God, or from people of faith.

Just say no! to tax-exemption.

The ostensible dilema of whether or not a church dabbling into politics should remain tax exempt is a problem created by the establishment of the income tax and the IRS.

I completely disagree. The ostensible dilemna of whether or not a church dabbling into politics should remain tax exempt is a problem created by the unspoken assertion that the State has pre-eminence over the Church. Thus, tax-exempt status is something that must be applied for to - or withheld by - the State, in an act asserting the State's unspoken doctrine of pre-eminence.

Further, the State's tax rate on citizens is actually higher than the Old Testament's requirement of a tithe (10%) to be paid to God via the Church. And the State requires it's money to be collected first, in the form of withholding. Pre-eminence again.

The State won't stop muzzling the churches in the United States, until the State recognizes the pre-eminence of God over the State first, and the co-sovereignty of the Church over it's citizens in addition to the State's.

I love David Limbaugh!

The liberals view of the Establishment Clause protects religious freedom about as much as a pillow pressed over the face and nose of an individual protects their freedom to breath air (right to life). They purpose to smother religion, nothing more.

This is all hogwash.

Pastors of 501(c)(3) churches are perfectly free to express their opinions about moral issues, politics, public policy, etc.

What they aren't able to do is to endorse candidates, engage in any significant amount of lobbying, etc.

This is the same for ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, whether they are a church, the NRA or Planned Parenthood (which ruins the Establishment Clause argument the author is trying to get away with).

If 501(c)(3) churches don't like the restrictions they can start paying taxes like everyone else or they can incorporate themselves as a 501(c)(4) or even a PAC like the NRA or Planned Parenthood or any thousands of other non-profits do.

Before houses of worship were complaining that they aren't treated like everyone else (re: charitable choice provisions/policies). Now they're arguing that they should be treated differently than everyone else (i.e. let us campaign but don't let any other non-profits).

Well, which is it?

So, I take it you're arguing for the pre-eminence of the State over the Church?

So what happens to the State, if the Church's object of worship turns out to be a) real, b) real big/powerful/etc, and c) jealous?

So, I take it you're arguing for the pre-eminence of the State over the Church?

The Church can avoid any such debate by simply not registering as a 501(c)(3). Nobody forces them to.

I do think that (non-registered) churches should pay taxes just like the rest of us. There's no such thing as a free pass for churches.

To add a little more to your observations, it's as simple as God created man, man created gov't. The created cannot be greater than the creator however in the case of 501C-3 churches they have in effect become corporations granted as a "privilege" by the state/fedgov. This relationship gives the state the ability to control the activities of the pastor/church in exchange for tax advantages. They've made a deal with the proverbial devil and end up suffering in silence because of their desire for tax privileges. That's why the gov't is deathly afraid of churches who operate the old fashioned way.

Amendment 1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …. Etc.

Hmmmm. Nothing here about “except if you have a tax exempt status you can’t talk about politics in church.” Those silly Founders. Well, we’ve fixed their oversight, haven’t we?

You see, Churches are not like other tax exempt organizations, they have their own amendment.

You misunderstand the reasons churches have been granted tax exemption. It is not due to their charitable work. It is because the power to tax is the power to destroy, and churches, due to the first amendment, are freed of government interference.

That is, until Lyndon Johnson got his little law passed.

gdani is correct. Both liberal and conservative pastors are free to deliver themselves of opinions on all the issues of the day. Churches, or any other 501(c)(3) organization, cannot act as a political entity, endorsing and campaigning for candidates, etc.

I'd love it if someone could point out to me any example of a church losing it's 501(c)(3) status because it's pastor made remarks of any kind during a sermon.

Hmmmm. Nothing here about “except if you have a tax exempt status you can’t talk about politics in church.” Those silly Founders. Well, we’ve fixed their oversight, haven’t we?

You see, Churches are not like other tax exempt organizations, they have their own amendment.

Please explain how restricting the political activities of all (religious or not) 501(c)(3) organizations is a violation of the Establishment Clause. As I said before, churches are perfectly free to talk about any amount or type of politics, public policy, etc that they want. They are not allowed to endorse candidates or engage in electioneering.

People that claim that pastors of 501(c)(3) churches are prevented from discussing politics while at the pulpit are either misinformed or are deliberately lying in an attempt to gain an advantage that non-religious 501(c)(3) groups would and do not have.

To add a little more to your observations, it's as simple as God created man, man created gov't.

Your post is most thoughtful. I had to correct this one thing. Government is of course, in a physical sense, run by men and set up by men (so are churches), but civil government is God's creation. Check out Romans 13 for more on this.

If 501C-3 pastors have all this supposed freedom to discuss politics or be critical of the gov't. why aren't they screaming about partial birth abortions, the gaia training in public schools, the elevated stautus of homosexuality in our culture and many other ills that we suffer from. Are they just gutless, uninformed, just don't care about anything except their current building project or all the above? The only answer I seem to get is that they don't want to "offend" attendees to their services which really hacks me off because their silence on all these issues SURE THE HELL OFFENDS ME!

I'd love it if someone could point out to me any example of a church losing it's 501(c)(3) status because it's pastor made remarks of any kind during a sermon.

You won't find a single example. Churches walk on eggshells and act like nervous nellies for no reason. One church has lost its tax exemption (The Church at Pierce Creek), and I have not examined the case but apparently they took out a newspaper ad and told people not to vote for Bill Clinton.

A couple of years ago, a church lost its tax-exempt status (or was subjected to an IRS anal exam costing the church thousands of dollars), because there was a sign on the front lawn that said, "Vote Pro-Life." In the Clinton era, that was political speech; but when Algore, the Rapist, or Hillary! preached from the pulpit of a Black church and took the collection with them out the back door, that wasn't political speech.

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.