• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

It's about time!

Scarecrow

Member
Established churches do not even need the 501c3 corporation status to be tax exempt! The IRS's own publications state this. Yet most churches rush to the government for approval to "do business". With 501c3 status comes restrictions...when the government owns you they tell you what you can and cannot do...

Now it seems the churches are fed up with their 501c3 status and it's limitations!

I say power to them...they should have the ability to state which politicians best represent the views of the church, unfortunately most Americans disagree...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44741162/ns ... ork_times/

1st Amendment:
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.
 
The constitutional party leader Chuck Baldwin is pastor/leader of Liberty Fellowship in Montana. They do not have a 501c3 status and thus they regularly and often involve themselves in the political atmosphere on a regular basis. They willingly and without reservation do not seek tax breaks for their donations so they in turn speak in all areas and all domains without restraint.
 
Yes...but they should have tax exempt status without needing government approval. This has long been recognized in our culture, and is even spelled out in the 1st amendment. Yet the IRS will only consider you exempt from 501c3 status if you are part of the long established religions such as Catholic, Lutheran, etc...any new churches not part of the "established" churches MUST comply and be registered as a 501c3 corporation. That to me is a breach of the 1st amendment because it IS a law which does regulate what a church can and cannot do. If my religion does not fall withing certain churches then my religion is held to a different standard...I don't see how this can be constitutional.
 
If you want to be political lobbyists, be lobbyists, if you want to be a Church be a Church, but it is a bit rich wanting to try to be both isn't it? And get tax breaks for doing so.

B
 
So any institution that receives "tax breaks" no longer qualifies for first amendment protection? That covers a lot of ground. Churches themselves cannot vote, so why can't a pastor tell his congregation which politicians most closely agree with the doctrine of the church? We have a secret ballot system. If someone does not want to vote for someone that the pastor of their church approves of they don't have to. Notice in the article that the IRS is intentionally avoiding a legal confrontation over the issue and has been for years...just like Utah is trying to avoid Kody Brown and family...they know they will lose on a constitutional basis.
 
Because it is not ethical Scarecrow. It is a secret ballot for a reason, it is a matter of personal conscience, not to mention the audacity of any Minister telling people how they should vote as if they are too stupid to find out the issues for themselves. I once was in a group that was part of an umbrella organisation, the overall organisation elected officers and so did the individual groups. I was sitting behind one officer in my group tell his girlfriend that the leader of our group told him who to vote for. Incidentally, the person he (the leader) wanted lost. But I had lost respect for both of them. The leader guy because he felt he could control the vote and his lapdog who did it. I have no respect for men without any sort of personal integrity.

It has nothing to do with Polygamy Scarecrow and I would rather not confuse the issue too much.

B
 
Actually a "church" does not have to apply to receive the 501c3. They have it automatically no matter what tradition they are from. I've aided in planting 4 or so churches and from various traditions and in each case they were recognized as such. I think Baldwin's group if they really wanted to could do what they are doing and still not have an issue. I think they do what they do merely so they do not have to deal with the hassle of the IRS. Some time back last year a group of several hundred or several thousand ministers all preached a political message on one Sunday and then sent to the IRS copies of their message seeking to challenge the IRS code on the censoring of their preaching with the hopes of suing them in federal court. I am not sure what has taken place with that. I'm sure it can be looked up on the net for some current information about how that is working out.
 
This article I found mentions some of the issues. The constitutional lawyer Simpkins has an interesting word about this issue below.
____________________________
A Christian group advocating religious freedom is asking pastors across the nation to challenge federal law by speaking openly on political topics from the pulpit.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which is today, is part of the Pulpit Initiative sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund. It's meant to draw attention to the claim that the IRS tax code for 501(c)(3) nonprofits is an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment's religious liberty clause.

But legal experts, pastors and advocates of church-state separation say the group's claim is specious, since it implies that political speech is forbidden in church, which it isn't, and that tax-exempt status is a constitutional right, which it's not.

At least one local church pastor is participating in the initiative, which has been promoted by the Alliance Defense Fund since 2008. The Rev. Kevin Baird of Legacy Church in West Ashley said pastors should be able to "teach the Scriptures and apply them to issues without fear of the Johnson amendment."

Baird and the Alliance Defense Fund are citing an amendment added to the tax law by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, and approved by Congress in 1954, which limits some political speech by churches and charities.

"The IRS cannot be a content manager or regulator," Baird said. "There is a legitimate intimidation factor that comes from the IRS and the left to squelch conservative pastors."

In 1987, Congress strengthened the ban on partisan endorsement by amending the tax rule "to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates," according to the IRS.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an affiliation of Christian attorneys and organizations led by Alan Sears, is challenging the ban.

On the lookout

The watchdog group American United for Separation of Church and State has reported many abuses of the law to the authorities over the years, requesting an IRS investigation. The group is on the lookout for egregious examples of partisan politicking and has reported liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning churches in equal measure, said the Rev. Barry Lynn, its executive director, in a telephone interview.

When Michelle Obama campaigned for her husband in September 2008 before the North Carolina Baptist Convention, AU reported the incident.

When Jesse Jackson was running for president in the 1980s and attempted to raise money for his campaign in black churches one Sunday, he received a warning from AU.

"We wrote him a letter and he stopped," Lynn said.

Problems only arise when political campaigning and IRS tax law collide, Lynn said.

"Tax exemption, even for churches, is not a constitutional right," he said. "It is a privilege that comes with modest constraints." You can't endorse or oppose a candidate for public office, and you can't use politics to enrich yourself.

"Martin Luther King talked about moral issues every day, but he never endorsed a candidate," Lynn said.

Churches can hold discussions on politics, and host someone from a particular party so long as they invite someone from the opposing party, he said.

"All you have to do is invite," Lynn said. The candidate need not accept the invitation. "It's the effort to be balanced and not give the appearance of an endorsement that's important."

Furthermore, churches are not prohibited by the IRS from political activity such as voter drives or debates on the issues. They have a lot of leeway concerning political speech, Lynn said. Pulpit Freedom Sunday, therefore, is nothing more than a "publicity stunt," he said.

Baird said the threat to churches is real. Even tax-exempt organizations need a tax identification number to claim their exemption and to conduct various transactions. "Without it, practically, I can't access these things," he said. As Baird sees it, the Constitution already exempts churches from paying taxes, and the IRS rule only adds an unnecessary layer of complexity the government can use to strong-arm religious groups.

"You have, in my opinion, pastors who are provoked into timidity or fear," he said.

Prohibited

John Simpkins, a research fellow at the Charleston School of Law and a constitutional law expert, said the claim that the government is restricting freedom of religious expression in churches doesn't hold water.

Churches, he said, are free to discuss politics, and even endorse specific candidates if they want, but then they risk forfeiting their tax-exempt status. There are other options, however, such as forming a political action committee or registering as a 501(c)(4), which can promote social welfare and lobby for legislation, or a 527 organization, whose purpose is to exert influence in political campaigns.

These options still qualify the organization for certain, limited tax exemptions.

"There is no constitutional bar on political speech in the church," Simpkins said. "The problem occurs when the church is advocating political action, when the church is involved directly in a particular political contest. That's prohibited."

Unto Caesar

Marvin Wood, pastor of Tall Pines Baptist Church in Ladson, said his objection is not the restrictions imposed by the tax law, but the prospect of sending church money to the government.

Tax-exempt status, even with its strings attached, is a welcomed benefit, he said.

Wood, who is a vocal conservative evangelical and once was involved with the Moral Majority in support of Ronald Reagan's presidential run, noted that the Bible contains its own version of a separation of church and state clause in the books of Matthew and Luke: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," he said.

Wood said politics often enters his church, and that he will tell his congregation, from the pulpit, who he plans to vote for, but asserts that his choice is a personal one and that others should "vote their conscience." Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage also are discussed, and, without naming names, Wood will admonish his congregation to vote for candidates who uphold Christian principles.

Lynn said this kind of talk nearly crosses the line, but the IRS, which is hamstrung by bureaucratic obstacles, tends to focus on churches whose actions and statements are explicitly partisan and promote one individual over another.

Wood said the tax law is not a good example of governmental overreaching.

"For me, if the law said this is what I can't do, if it doesn't hinder me from preaching the Gospel, I want to be lawful," Wood said. "If the 501(c)(3) gives me the advantage of tax exemption, I want to take advantage of that. We don't tithe to the Lord because of a government tax benefit, but we're not stupid."
 
"Because it is not ethical Scarecrow."

The "average" American hardly has the initiative to do much more than watch political commercials on TV which isn't saying much. Most "Christians" are "average" Americans. Most of them appreciate it when someone they trust takes the time to find out where the candidates actually do stand on issues and inform them. Whether this is a family member, a boss, or a pastor why should it make any difference? It should not jeopardize the tax exempt status of an organization to recognize which political candidates most closely represent their beliefs. It still doesn't force the individual to vote for a particular candidate.
 
Scarecrow said:
"Because it is not ethical Scarecrow."

The "average" American hardly has the initiative to do much more than watch political commercials on TV which isn't saying much. Most "Christians" are "average" Americans. Most of them appreciate it when someone they trust takes the time to find out where the candidates actually do stand on issues and inform them. Whether this is a family member, a boss, or a pastor why should it make any difference? It should not jeopardize the tax exempt status of an organization to recognize which political candidates most closely represent their beliefs. It still doesn't force the individual to vote for a particular candidate.


I hate political inertia also Scarecrow, but I don't feel enabling that behaviour is the way forward for an informed and true democratic country, if we want our elected officials to truly represent us (and here I come up against my own difficulties with the political process because I am a 'Power corrupts' cynic) we have to be personally involved. If a person is to lazy or dim to make up their own minds, I wonder if it is ethical for any party to benefit from their vote, I know it benefits Politicians for us to be Politically lazy and to do as we are told and vote the way the Establishment tells us to vote. But I don't want to be a sheep.

B - the cynic
 
I wish more people thought like you...then pastors wouldn't waste their time or need to waste their time explaining politicians views to their congregation. Unfortunately we live in a country where he that spends the most to get elected wins...also he who the powers that be want to run and win...win (think Obama)...Take this Republican bozo from Texas they keep trying to throw in front of us...he clearly lost the debate (he is a moron!) and the one highly favored in the debate by the viewers is completely ignored and gets little press...pitiful...
 
It does seem to be the case that money wins out over substance time and time again. No, I get that Scarecrow, it disturbs me, it also means that lots of people, ignorantly vote against their own interests, because they have somehow been told that X person represents them.. At the end of the day, most of them represent themselves and their friends with the money, all these other supposedly 'moral' issues are a smokescreen to keep the commoners happy and distracted! Blood and Circuses Scarecrow.

B
 
Agreed! I find it interesting how our country is almost 50/50 repub/dem. A house divided against itself will not stand...guess what is happening to our country? We are so busy fighting with each other that we haven't notice a small group of rich elite has fleeced the entire population...
 
Scarecrow said:
Agreed! I find it interesting how our country is almost 50/50 repub/dem. A house divided against itself will not stand...guess what is happening to our country? We are so busy fighting with each other that we haven't notice a small group of rich elite has fleeced the entire population...

Well said!!!

B
 
Back
Top