Posted on 03/15/2011 5:53:32 PM PDT by daniel1212
"Our examination of your activities concluded that your organization continues to qualify for exemption from Federal Income Tax," the Internal Revenue Service wrote to All Saints Church in Pasadena, California.
The church had been under examination for an October 31, 2004, anti-war sermon. The church is "pleased that the IRS exam is over," pastor J. Edwin Bacon told the congregation Sunday, but he's upset about this section of the IRS letter:
"Based on the existing record, the Church's actions lead us to the conclusion that the Church intervened in the 2004 Presidential election campaign..."
But since the letter doesn't say what in the sermon constituted intervention into the campaign, the church has "no more guidance about the IRS rules now than when we started this process over two long years ago," Bacon said.
The IRS's rhetoric "requires a crazy reading of the actual text of the sermon, and calls into serious question what the IRS is up to — and who is directing its bureaucrats to so opine," an editorial in the Pasadena Star-News said. "All the IRS or anyone else has to do is go to the sermon, available for all to read on the church's Web site, to see that absolutely no endorsement was made."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Federal appeals panel upholds IRS decision to strip church of tax-exempt status
By Jeremy Leaming New York church was accused of partisan politicking after buying full-page anti-Clinton newspaper ads in 1992. 05.15.00
L.A. church's tax status in jeopardy over anti-war sermon, priest says
All Souls Episcopal officials say IRS has warned liberal church that it may lose tax exemption for homily delivered on eve of 2004 presidential election. 11.08.05
2 evangelical churches accused of illegal politicking
Thirty-one religious leaders ask IRS to determine whether Ohio churches should lose tax-exempt status because of their support for gubernatorial candidate. 01.19.06
IRS finds churches, charities overstep into politics
According to agency, nearly three out of four nonprofits suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in 2004 election actually did so. 03.02.06
IRS warns churches, nonprofits to avoid politicking
Newspaper reports that agency has sent notices detailing new enforcement program, the Political Activity Compliance Initiative. 07.18.06
See tagline. Nuff said.
I wonder if everyone had walked across the street from the church for this speech whether there would be an issue.
In contrast to the place the Bible historically had in over 300 years of American education and the status therein of Christian faith in 1962 when Engel v. Vitale case was decided, (when an estimated 75 percent of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings[9]), some see court decisions in the last 60 years as resulting in Christian faith being functionally supplanted by secularist ideology and the religion of non-theistic Secular Humanism.[10]
Donald Closson comments that,
| “ | Some administrators, reacting to the heated debate surrounding public expressions of faith, have sought to create a neutral environment by excluding any reference to religious ideas or even ideas that might have a religious origin. The result has often been to create an environment hostile to belief, precisely what the Supreme Court has argued against in its cases which restricted practices of worship in the schools such as school-led prayer and Scripture reading.[11] Hamburger in his work The Separation of Church and State (2002), argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment, the term being a catchphrase used by forces hostile to certain religions trying to limit their influence. He notes that 18th century Americans almost never invoked this principle. In addition, there was a distinction between "separation" and "disestablishment" - a distinction all the more significant because the Constitution's Religion Clauses do not mandate the separate of church and state, but they forbid the "establishment" of religion and guaranteed its "free exercise." [44] In 1998, the FBI’s crime lab examined Jefferson's letter, uncovering words deleted by the president (nearly 30 percent of the draft) prior to publication. This, along with other evidence, indicates that Jefferson’s pledge to separate church and state was at least partly political motivated. James H. Hutson, head of the library’s manuscripts collection, stated, "It will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt of enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed."[18] Jefferson’s letter and the FBI’s restoration work are among the items in an exhibit at the Library of Congress called, "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." The exhibit also notes that Jefferson began to attend worship services held at the House of Representatives two days after writing the letter, and that he permitted regular worship services to be held there, a practice that continued until after the Civil War, with preachers from every Protestant denomination appearing there. The Library of Congress exhibit records that As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience."...In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government. [19][20] |
Churches are 501(c) tax exempt organizations and as such cannot take part in campaigns ( unless the church is UCC or UU or one of the Baptist churches Democrats campaign from).
NPR is a 501 also and you will note their reluctance to take sides in a campaign.
Some pigs are more equal than others, it seems.
Good point, though i suppose that they would say such was still wrong if the pastor preached it as sermon. The IRS rules are sufficiently ambiguous to be able to intimidate churches from doing not only what they ought to be able to do, but may be able to do, even if that i think that need not be a major part of Biblical preaching. It has its place, and John the Baptist did not get any votes for Herod, that “fox” (though this may have been a different one in Lk. 13:32), but the priority is that the evangelical church is an alternative to society.
A church should be free to be as political as they want.
“anti-war sermon.”
Blessed be the peacemakers :)
Thought you were to the left until i saw your next line! I heard the station someone else had on the other day, and they were saying that they were going to make up for the other networks lack of coverage in Wisconsin, and so for about 45 minutes they played the leftist speeches from there. Too typical.
Indeed. Here in MA the largest black church laid hands on Deval Patrick before he was elected Gov. Later he openly mocked God in celebrating gay marriage, that the sky had not fallen, and the ground had not opened up.
That is the goal, but the sword of men is necessary for the State, and God sanctions its just use by them - not the church in fighting its war.
LOL yeah I’m way left!
I agree 100% but punishing a church for being anti-war is ironic. Considering that they don’t pay tax, I don’t think they should use church money run ads again Palin or Obama but preaching morality (as they see it) and peace are well into their free speech rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger#Controversy
In February 2003, Pfleger generated controversy by inviting Al Sharpton to speak at a Mass during Black History Month celebrations. Cardinal Francis George disapproved of Sharpton’s appearance, due to Sharpton’s support of abortion. Sharpton was also a presidential candidate at the time, and archdiocese officials were concerned that having a political candidate speak in church would cause them to lose their tax-exempt status. However, George decided that trying to stop Sharpton from coming “would be a futile gesture and a waste of effort”.[19]
On June 3, 2008, Cardinal George asked Pfleger to take a disciplinary leave of absence from St. Sabina. George said in a statement, “I have asked Father Michael Pfleger, Pastor of St. Sabina’s Parish, to step back from his obligations there and take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties, effective today. Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time. While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.”[26] Pfleger resumed his parish duties on June 16, 2008.[27]
I think it is dangerous to allow an organization exempt from taxes to participate actively in campaigns. What stake then do they have in keeping taxes low? There are other issues as well, taxes comes to mind most readily.
If a church decides to give up the 501(c) tax exemption, state tax exemption, and local property tax exemption, then yes they can and should be as political as you or me.
It seems to me that most activist groups are non-profit too.
Churches should not be registering with the IRS anyways, IMO, and they should be able to say anything they want.
Free speech is not just for perverts!
Churches do not have to file non-profit. They can organize as an S Corp or whatever and pay taxes.
I don’t know if there are any, though.
Yes, lefty organizations file non-profit and for some reason their political activism goes unpunished. For some reason.
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.