Should Churches that Push Politics Remain Tax Exempt?

[Correction]

I can talk all I want about politics, but I cant go infront of a crowd and endorse a canidate while in uniform, as my uniform represents something higher than myself.

I dont have a problem with these people meeting after church and having political rallies at someone's house. They still enjoy free speach as their opinion is just as important as mine. They just have no right to violate the law and force political agendas on people that take their word as law.

And yet police chiefs and attorneys general endorse political candidates all the time.

Quickly Batman, to the TaxMobile!

[Zosi]

And yet police chiefs and attorneys general endorse political candidates all the time.

Quickly Batman, to the TaxMobile!

Guess what, preachers and ministers are allowed to endorse political candidates too! However, they do it as individuals (just as the police chiefs and attorney generals do), not as a function of their job, and not in a manner that is designed to coerce the other people in their respective organizations to vote for that person as well. That's the critical difference.

[Akucaen]

Yes they should be taxed, all of them, regardless of religion if they accept money at all.

[Correction]

Guess what, preachers and ministers are allowed to endorse political candidates too! However, they do it as individuals (just as the police chiefs and attorney generals do), not as a function of their job, and not in a manner that is designed to coerce the other people in their respective organizations to vote for that person as well. That's the critical difference.

Except that when they do it in uniform, on television, and introduce themselves as 'Police Chief Clancy Wiggum' they are not doing it as private citizens.

What I'm trying to point out is that the argument that pastors and preachers have no right to endorse political candidates is stupid.

The idea that they can do that without being subject to revocation of their tax-exempt status is probably stupid as well, but I'm seeing a torrent of people who suddenly become choosy on what constitutionally protected speech means when it comes to religious people. And for some reason they are immune to suggestions that they may have the same fucking rights as anybody who lives in a free and open democracy.

[Gregorio]

Hurt alot of people? I would consider taking advantage of our tax system in an attempt to tell highly impressionable people that
"god wants you to vote for so and so" would be far more hurtful to people than accountability of assets.

I fail to see why the government deserves a cut of any donation I feel like making to my church in the first place. When the second collection comes around at mass to benefit a family who lost their house in a flood or fire and I decide to throw a 5 in there...why does the government get $2 off the top of that money before it hits anyone elses hands? And how exactly does not taxing them on my donation hurt anyone else? You're only hurting the beneficiaries of NPOs when you tax them.

And if the church is telling people to vote for a candidate because that candidate has the same morals as the church, then the people who really base their decisions on that kind of stuff were probably already going to vote for the "church endorsed" candidate anyway.

[Neosutra]

Except that when they do it in uniform, on television, and introduce themselves as 'Police Chief Clancy Wiggum' they are not doing it as private citizens.

What I'm trying to point out is that the argument that pastors and preachers have no right to endorse political candidates is stupid.

The idea that they can do that without being subject to revocation of their tax-exempt status is probably stupid as well, but I'm seeing a torrent of people who suddenly become choosy on what constitutionally protected speech means when it comes to religious people. And for some reason they are immune to suggestions that they may have the same fucking rights as anybody who lives in a free and open democracy.

Ya, cause we are all saying we dont want them to have free speech right?

Oh wait no one said that.

And most instances where a public official in office openly endorses another public official are not even remotely comparible to this situation. In the situations where you listed, those people are in public elected offices as well and it is by the very nature of their post to comment on the political leadership that will infleunce their areas of influence. (Oh and they are tax funded, the church isnt).

[Correction]

Ya, cause we are all saying we dont want them to have free speech right?

Oh wait no one said that.

Churches shouldn't be pushing politics in the first place.

Someone said it. I had to point out that such a stance is beyond retarded.

They just have no right to violate the law and force political agendas on people that take their word as law.

And yet there are plenty of perfectly religious people who do not necessarily vote with what their preacher says. Gosh it's almost as if folks had a mind of their own rather than accept 'God says vote for Proposition B' as dogma. I think you overstate the level of 'force' going on in the scenario you describe.

[Neosutra]

Someone said it. I had to point out that such a stance is beyond retarded.



And yet there are plenty of perfectly religious people who do not necessarily vote with what their preacher says. Gosh it's almost as if folks had a mind of their own rather than accept 'God says vote for Proposition B' as dogma. I think you overstate the level of 'force' going on in the scenario you describe.

You dont really get it do you?

They dont violate their free speech rights, because they still have the ability to endorse canidates while not on the pulpit.

And jesus titty fucking christ, you completely skipped my statement of "now i know you are going to say people dont always believe what their preacher says", no shit, it is the endorsement of their platform that violates the trust and law.

Seriously, fucking read of gtfo.

[Correction]

And jesus titty fucking christ, you completely skipped my statement of "now i know you are going to say people dont always believe what their preacher says", no shit, it is the endorsement of their platform that violates the trust and law.

Seriously, fucking read of gtfo.

I would consider taking advantage of our tax system in an attempt to tell highly impressionable people that
"god wants you to vote for so and so" would be far more hurtful to people than accountability of assets.

And before you say "just because my preacher says it, doesnt mean its gods word or I have to beleive it", realize that when you politisize from the pulpit, you are doing so with the implication that what you are saying is based on your doctrines and thus "gods will".

I read it. I just think you're wrong.

a) Even Catholics can tell the difference between God and their pastor.

b) You're trying to have it both ways. You don't get to say that people are 'highly impressionable' and accuse me of not reading your silly 'disclaimer' when I say that people have a mind of their own.

You're still clearly full of doubt that a parish will obey their pastor on political issues and that somehow trust in a church's stance on things extends to alignment on social, economic and international issues. Someone who agrees with the paster who says 'vote on prop B' was probably going to vote that way anyway based on what they've been taught their entire lives.

And I'm not arguing that direct intervention in a political campaign shouldn't strip a church of its tax-exempt status. If they're breaking that law then by all means strip them of it. I wonder if you won't be stopped there, though.

[Beckwin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090702460.html

^article in the post about this issue.

Basically, this is some bullshit. A bunch of conservative pastors are basically daring the government to take away their tax exempt status and then will use that as a polarizing and victimizing issue. What a bunch of fucking horseshit.

Last I checked, I can't build a private club complete with a lecture hall, basketball courts, big screen tv and projectors, a sweetass soundsystem all while tax-exempt so I can "preach" my politics.

Such endorsements are prohibited by a 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

Essentially, this goes to prevent citizens from subsidizing campaigns/politicians they do not agree with (this is in contrast to publicly funded elections, which at least for federal elections are a voluntary and non-partisan deal).

[Neosutra]

Sorry for the necro bump, but apparently they are going through with it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us...preach.html?em

Im suprised the lawyers are that naive. I hope those churches that participate have to pay back taxes when they lose their exemption.