IRS to churches: Watch what you preach :D Ooooh, politics and religion all in one story! ;)http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=17459IRS to churches: Watch what you preach
Inside the First Amendment
By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar
10.01.06
Angry confrontations over the role of churches in politics are now a staple of every election cycle — and this year’s mid-term battles are no exception.
Leaders of the Christian Right are working overtime to mobilize evangelical churches to get out the vote. In response, church-state watchdog groups are warning that those efforts could result in churches’ losing their tax-exempt status.
What Focus on the Family calls nonpartisan appeals to “values voters,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State characterizes as “a church-based political machine on behalf of favored Republican candidates.”
Hovering ominously above the debate are the dreaded IRS agents who have vowed to enforce the section of the tax code that prohibits all tax-exempt charitable organizations, including churches, from participating or intervening in any political campaign for or against any candidate.
But what constitutes “intervening” — short of saying vote for candidate X or support the Y party? IRS rules allow churches to speak out on political issues and permit voter registration and education efforts. But exactly when do those activities become “partisan” in violation of the tax code?
A court may soon give us an answer to that murky question. Last week, All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., home to one of the nation’s largest liberal congregations, announced that it would not cooperate with an IRS investigation into an anti-war sermon preached by the Rev. George Regas two days before the 2004 presidential election.
The refusal by All Saints to turn over correspondence, sermons and other documents sets the stage for a possible court case should the IRS decide to pursue the matter. Since IRS investigations into church activities are shrouded in secrecy and usually settled quietly, a court battle would be a rare public discussion about where the “partisan-nonpartisan” line should be drawn for tax-exempt churches.
With so much controversy surrounding evangelical churches in politics, it’s a bit ironic that a liberal church is challenging the IRS. It turns out that many liberals are as outraged as conservatives when the tax collector enters the temple.
The offending sermon at All Saints was passionate and political — but was it “taking sides” in the presidential race? The Rev. Regas was careful to open the sermon with a disclaimer: “I don’t intend to tell you how to vote.” He then went on to imagine what Jesus would say in a three-way debate with John Kerry and George W. Bush. By the end, Regas had concluded that Jesus is very, very unhappy with Bush’s policies on everything from the war in Iraq to tax cuts.
In other words, vote your conscience. But if you care about what Jesus thinks, vote for you-know-who.
Let’s be honest. Isn’t this kind of “wink, wink” endorsement by religious groups commonplace in this and every election? All of those voter guides from advocacy groups are labeled “nonpartisan,” but they are clearly designed to let churchgoers know how to cast their vote. And plenty of churches routinely give a platform to candidates of one party to the exclusion of the other.
This shouldn’t surprise us. After all, Christian “values voters” — liberal and conservative — want to elect people who reflect their values. Tax code notwithstanding, it’s hard for religious leaders to refrain from naming names.
But now that the IRS seems to be cracking down on churches that give even the appearance of partisan activity, clergy are rushing to decipher the regulations. As a result, there’s a cold IRS wind blowing in many sanctuaries this fall.
If the All Saints case goes to court, it may revive efforts by some Republicans in Congress to amend the IRS code to allow political endorsements from the pulpit. Earlier attempts failed, but the high-profile battle between a liberal church and the IRS may enlist some congressional Democrats in the cause.
The challenge is to come up with a narrowly focused “pulpit exemption” that removes restrictions on speech when clergy are speaking to their congregations, but retains prohibitions against religious organizations’ getting involved in partisan political campaigns.
By resisting the investigation into the Regas sermon, All Saints Church is forcing a much-needed public debate on a tax code that many churches find convoluted and confusing. At stake for churches and other houses of worship is the freedom to preach a prophetic word – without being second-guessed by the IRS.
antryg- 10-02-2006
I am very glad to see the position that All Saints has taken. Religious groups need a very public face off with the IRS. If there is any organization which still believes in divine right, it is the IRS. Everything they do is a degradation of our rights as Americans. Now it is facing off against one of our nations core values. Maybe this will force Congress to reign in this outlaw group.
What might prove just as significant will be the reaction of conservative (politically) churches. Is the Christian faith more important than politics? Will Christians accept that the government may tax them? This is a fight which will challenge Christians to examine their faith and its relationship to nation and politics. Part of the, unavoidable, fallout will be how this impacts smaller religious groups. If All Saints wins against the IRS; the position of non-mainstream religious groups will be strengthened.
Robert the Bard- 10-03-2006
It's simple, really. A church is a group of people, and people will have political as well as spiritual values. The line has to be drawn at "campaigning" at the pulpit. It violates the conditions of the rules laid out for their tax exempt status. If the members want to put a sign out in the front yard of the church, I can't see a problem with that, but to get up on the pulpit and say "Jesus would vote this way" is an outright manipulation, and a direct violation of the rules. Not only that, I'd say it's downright arrogant... :evil:
helene- 10-03-2006
People like to vote for people that others like them will vote for. (Did that make sense??) So when churches lean towards one side, so will its followers. I can see how this may be a problem. I mean, wasn't this a problem in the early days, where the church was involved in all decisions? The church WAS the law.
Don't get me wrong. I'm Christian - grew up with the Evangelists, at that. But the separation of church and state is there for a reason. We live in a diverse nation with many ethnicities and a growing number of religious beliefs. If the church gets to tell its follwers how to vote by manipulation, doesn't this mean that, ultimately, the church gets to vote for who takes office? After all, isn't a vast majority of Americans Christian?
A minister or a respected church official stating that he or she likes a certain candidate is fine. We're all entitled to our personal opinions, and are allowed to preach that, if we so choose. But using Jesus is manipulative and just plain wrong. As Robert said, you can nudge people, but campaigning is a whole other thing. And using the name of Jesus to scare people into voting one way is just F'd up, royally. Who are they to know who Jesus would like to vote for? Did He come to them in a dream and tell them so? How do they know?
So those churches who put even a toe out of line should definitely lose its tax exempt status. Hopefully, clearer rules and regs will decide where the line lies.
Edited to add: Robert, I have taken your coffee before and did get away with it... I decided its best to publically confess so that there is no confusion in the future. :lol:
FalconDance- 10-04-2006
And that's exactly the problem, Helene. Many (most?) people will go along with whatever they feel their neighbors do. Two reasons: 1) it's part of a 'herd' mentality which is greatly encouraged by certain large religions and 2) they don't want to be seen as 'different', as not 'one of the crowd', which is essentially an extention of number 1.
I call it travelling in ovine circles. (Actually, I call it worse, but I'm trying to be nice ;). )
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. You're even entitled the ability and opportunity to voice that opinion in a clear, somewhat intelligble manner. Why only in that manner? Because more radical expression is either frowned upon or can land you in jail for various and sundry offenses (if you decide to voice your opinion by car bombing an abortion clinic, for example, that is no longer considered intelligble. It's considered arson, assault, murder, terrorism, all types of non-friendly things).
If a preacher states that he or she believes candidate X stands for certain acceptable beliefs and that he/she intends to vote for candidate X, that's one thing. Standing in front of the congregation and extolling candidate's virtues or that of X's political party exceeds the limits.
There is NO "Division of Church and State" mentioned in the Constitution, there is only the Amendment that prohibits the government at large from establishing one religion over any other. The IRS, however, in its questionable but quite clearly mercenary wisdom, has drawn the line where 'church' ends and 'state' begins and ne'er the twain shall meet (theoretically).
If Father Schmoe wants to preach government from the pulpit and use specifics, then he has stepped over the tax exempt status of preaching and gone straight to political lobbying, no collecting $200, no get out of hell free card.
Forumer™ is Voted #1 Free Forum Hosting provider
Build your own community today with the largest message board hosting company.