Black churches have been doing this for years. It seems that it's only when conservative churches engage in politics that the threats of removing tax exemption come forth. Double standard.
I am not sure that black churches have been telling people who to vote for.
But that said, there is clearly a different historic role for black churches in America than there has been for white. Or perhaps you have forgotten slavery.
White and black churches hail from much different theological traditions; to cry double standard here is not exactly fair.
I do not see black churches intentionally putting themselves in the position as the FRC has in this case. Shall we trot out Wiley Drake?
Perhaps some kind of proof can be marshaled for this assertion. And besides, how does this dichotomy between white and black churches have anything to do with this article?
Ah Curtis, always the reasonable and thoughtful contributor here.
Well, get out your "calulator" and rethink your criticism. Politicians have spoken in churches for years (White and black alike). When I was in Texas, every gubernatorial candidate spoke at a church the Sunday before the election. Personally, I don't like that either, mind you, but it is part of the Bible Belt political system.
But we are talking about pastors using their pulpit, not to address political issues or moral issues, but to openly endorse a candidate. For example, (not that you care about fairness) I have no problem with conservative churches preaching that homosexuality and abortion are sins. I disagree (at least partially) with that, but actually like it when the church addresses moral issues. What we are discussing here is the Christian Coalition type "telling people who to vote for" that is a problem regardless of the church who does that.
And by the way, the black church does play a different role in society than the white church. I am really glad you are concerned with fairness and equality, but for the last 350 years, only the most recent 40 have African Americans had equal rights under the law. So please spare me your lectures. What is more, the black church served as a meeting ground for African Americans trying to survive in an openly hostile culture.
For me, I don't care if you're black, white, asian, liberal, conservative, or whatever. If you break the tax code you should have your tax exempt status revoked. This is not a difficult issue. With apologies to Streak and other readers, I'm posting another comment below that has several links and some quotes from the tax code. Clergy get considerable tax breaks and churches get tax deductable donations. (I have some issues there, but for the sake of this thread let's say that it's ok and it IS legal) These things are allowed if you follow the rules. It does not mean that you cannot engage in political endorsements and tell people exactly what they should do politically. It just means that if you do you will lose your tax exemption. The whining we sometimes hear about the government wanting to silence the church on politics is crap. It's there for the protection of all the churches and other 501(c)3s that deserve the exemption. These guys are wanting preferred tax status from the government while disobeying the same codes that give them that status. Of course, if they were the real radicals they like to say they are, then they'd voluntarily give up their tax exempt status and then be able to say whatever they want. BUT they can't survive without the tax tax deductible contributions of the faithful. Such radicals indeed.
Anyway, again, sorry for the next post, Streak, but this is a hot button issue with me.
I think this is definitely "across the line". I'm not an accountant or a tax attorney (nor do I play on on TV and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night) but even dummy old me can read the IRS' statements here . This link is to the IRS Tax Guide for Religions and Churches (it's a pretty good sized pdf) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Here's a snip or two:
However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
And here's an example from the guide: Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concludes by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Since Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention attributable to Church M.
Inviting a Candidate to Speak Depending on the facts and circumstances, a church or religious organization may invite political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity as candidates, or individually (not as a candidate). Speaking as a candidate. Like any other IRC section 501(c)(3) organization, when a candidate is invited to speak at a church or religious organization event as a political candidate, the church or religious organization must take steps to ensure that: ■ it provides an equal opportunity to the political candidates seeking the same office, ■ it does not indicate any support of or opposition to the candidate (This should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate’s attendance.), and ■ no political fundraising occurs.
There's more definitions and very understandable examples listed throughout, but I'll stop there. For a government document I must say it's pretty easy to understand.
Why is asking for proof unreasonable? You have two examples here of just exactly what Streak has asserted in the post; the Family Research Council and Wiley Drake, SBC pastor from So Cal. It would not take long to provide you with more.
Yet you assert some generic statement; "Oh, everyone knows that." If so, certainly an example or two wouldn't be hard to provide.
And you should listen to the Bootlegger. Bootlegger is good, Bootlegger is wise.
Kudos on you for doing a little homework and contributing meaningfully.
But, did you happen to overlook that Americans United also held Friendship Missionary Baptist Church and Gaston Smith to the same standard you're saying isn't held?
Don't tell me you think our black brethren go unnoticed in this arena. We here might think that would be slightly racial on your part.
And by the way, Curtis, this is not a bipartisan effort to help churches make informed decisions. This bespeaks of cold manipulation on behalf of the FRC, an organization who is supposed to promote "values."
So, Curtis, when I note that white politicians regularly attend white churches in the election cycle, you just ignore that? as well as the distinction between allowing a speaker and instructing the flock how to vote?
You are right. I did not read the entire article I cited from the Washington Post. My mistake.
Do you agree with and support Americans United?
Streak,
I know politicians sometimes speak in white churches. My point is that black churches routinely get a pass on candidate endorsements while conservative churches are more often criticized for doing similar things.
I don't necessarily have a problem with churches being involved in the politcal process. But it would be good if the laws were applied equally. I expect that problem will continue to worsen and that someday soon, conservative churches will have to either give up their tax exemption, or keep quiet on issues in the political arena.
Thanks, guys. I will say Streak has called me "wise" plenty of times before, but it is always followed by the word "ass". I think he's probably just typing too fast this time and forgot to put it in:-)
There's legal experts on this blog that can speak more to this, but rather than saying one church tradition or another has gotten a "pass" in the past I'd say "churches" have pretty well gotten passes all along. Unless I'm mistaken only one bona fide church has lost it's tax exempt status and that was over a full page ad in the NY Times (see this link). I think the IRS is very hesitant to go after churches as opposed to other non-profits due to the other constitutional protections they get. I'm not an attorney, but from what I've read I understand that these would be quite the challenge legally. I'm sure they could be PR nightmares. So, while I'd like to see more of these cases, I know it ain't going to happen and every church flavor will probably continue to get a pass when political candidates speak at the church, the pastor makes statements in a sermon, or on other basically internal activities of the church.
The difference here to me is the premeditated intent for an organization to promote churches to intentionally challenge the law. I think the IRS will have no choice but to file suit on these guys. Not only that, the FRC is a 501(c)3 that in their materials states "...as a 501(c)(3) research and education organization, we are legally prohibited from endorsing any candidate for public office." So, they're carefully telling other non-profits to risk their tax exempt status while protecting their own. If the IRS does file suit I can't imaging the amount of money this will mean for these organizations. Jay Sekulow's mouth has to be watering.
The bigger picture for me on this argument isn't freedom of religion or political speech. I agree that it's best to err on the side of liberty when the pulpit is occasionally used for political speech. If, however, your church or non-profit wants to go further into partisan political activity, the law allows for that. You change over to a 501(c)4, contributions aren't tax deductible, contributions are reported, and you go right along with your political message. These guys, however, want the tax exempt contributions AND the partisan activities. It's about the money, not the freedom.
Do people really consider electoral politics such a priority in their church that they want to challenge their protections for it? If churches are allowed political endorsements, what about contributions? It's in the same code. Tax deductible, non-traceable donations being used to support candidates. Anyone else see what kind of money this could mean? Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but come to find out those back rooms do exist in religious organizations as well as political ones. Of course, I guess we don't need to make that distinction anymore.
Lastly, the majority of churches obey the law and many I've been involved in believe the law is good for them and everyone else. Unfortunately, some powerful players are more interested in political power and money than spiritual guidance.
It all comes down to this, as bootleg says. Give up your tax exempt status, have ur clergy, and your church (which is almost certainly a corporation in your state) pay all the taxes that everyone else pays, give up ALL those benefits,and hey u can do what you want.
Otherwise, stay within the law and 'Render unto Caesar'
BB's assessment is very accurate from what I can tell. Tax law is not my thing, but Con Law is. Yanking tax exempt status is not restricting freedon of speech or religion. That status is a perk and the gov't is not under any obligation to grant it.
The problem comes about if the IRS starts making a big deal about this and is accused of being inconsistent. I don't think they have a mechanism in place to monitor church acticity on a widespread basis that would be fair.
So, it seems I am late to the party again. We have pastors, lawyers, and small dogs all bringing relevant information to this discussion.
To ensure that Streak's Blog remains Fair and Balanced, we have Lon Cheney, the Man of 1000 Aliases. He contributes opinion, umbrage, and is not afraid to let limited reading comprehension interfere with a good argument.
Absolutely, ubub! A brilliant, cogent summary of the discussion so far. I eagerly await your insightful commentary and generous contributions to this discussion.
30 comments:
Black churches have been doing this for years. It seems that it's only when conservative churches engage in politics that the threats of removing tax exemption come forth. Double standard.
I am not sure that black churches have been telling people who to vote for.
But that said, there is clearly a different historic role for black churches in America than there has been for white. Or perhaps you have forgotten slavery.
White and black churches hail from much different theological traditions; to cry double standard here is not exactly fair.
I do not see black churches intentionally putting themselves in the position as the FRC has in this case. Shall we trot out Wiley Drake?
Perhaps some kind of proof can be marshaled for this assertion. And besides, how does this dichotomy between white and black churches have anything to do with this article?
Not exactly fair? I thought the law was supposed to apply to everyone equally.
Proof? You're kidding, right? I'd have to have a calulator to count the times Democrat candidates have spoken in black churches.
Ah Curtis, always the reasonable and thoughtful contributor here.
Well, get out your "calulator" and rethink your criticism. Politicians have spoken in churches for years (White and black alike). When I was in Texas, every gubernatorial candidate spoke at a church the Sunday before the election. Personally, I don't like that either, mind you, but it is part of the Bible Belt political system.
But we are talking about pastors using their pulpit, not to address political issues or moral issues, but to openly endorse a candidate. For example, (not that you care about fairness) I have no problem with conservative churches preaching that homosexuality and abortion are sins. I disagree (at least partially) with that, but actually like it when the church addresses moral issues. What we are discussing here is the Christian Coalition type "telling people who to vote for" that is a problem regardless of the church who does that.
And by the way, the black church does play a different role in society than the white church. I am really glad you are concerned with fairness and equality, but for the last 350 years, only the most recent 40 have African Americans had equal rights under the law. So please spare me your lectures. What is more, the black church served as a meeting ground for African Americans trying to survive in an openly hostile culture.
But y'know, when they get their tax exempt status yanked they're gonna cry "persecution!"
kgp
Streak,
Do you mean that all that civil rights talk about equality was just a ruse? I'm shocked.
Curtis,
have you checked your water supply for arsenic? I think your side is the one who has used the "equality" argument selectively.
And thanks again for ignoring my post. You are such a blessing to this blog, and such a wise voice. You always respond to people's reasoned responses.
Or something.
For me, I don't care if you're black, white, asian, liberal, conservative, or whatever. If you break the tax code you should have your tax exempt status revoked. This is not a difficult issue. With apologies to Streak and other readers, I'm posting another comment below that has several links and some quotes from the tax code. Clergy get considerable tax breaks and churches get tax deductable donations. (I have some issues there, but for the sake of this thread let's say that it's ok and it IS legal) These things are allowed if you follow the rules. It does not mean that you cannot engage in political endorsements and tell people exactly what they should do politically. It just means that if you do you will lose your tax exemption. The whining we sometimes hear about the government wanting to silence the church on politics is crap. It's there for the protection of all the churches and other 501(c)3s that deserve the exemption. These guys are wanting preferred tax status from the government while disobeying the same codes that give them that status. Of course, if they were the real radicals they like to say they are, then they'd voluntarily give up their tax exempt status and then be able to say whatever they want. BUT they can't survive without the tax tax deductible contributions of the faithful. Such radicals indeed.
Anyway, again, sorry for the next post, Streak, but this is a hot button issue with me.
Later-BB
I think this is definitely "across the line". I'm not an accountant or a tax attorney (nor do I play on on TV and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night) but even dummy old me can read the IRS' statements here . This link is to the IRS Tax Guide for Religions and Churches (it's a pretty good sized pdf) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Here's a snip or two:
However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
And here's an example from the guide:
Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concludes by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Since Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention attributable to Church M.
Inviting a Candidate to Speak Depending on the facts and circumstances, a church or religious organization may invite political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity as candidates, or individually (not as a candidate). Speaking as a candidate. Like any other IRC section 501(c)(3) organization, when a candidate is invited to speak at a church or religious organization event as a political candidate, the church or religious organization must take steps to ensure that:
■ it provides an equal opportunity to the political candidates seeking the same office,
■ it does not indicate any support of or opposition to the candidate (This should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate’s attendance.), and
■ no political fundraising occurs.
There's more definitions and very understandable examples listed throughout, but I'll stop there. For a government document I must say it's pretty easy to understand.
Later-BB
Curtis,
Why is asking for proof unreasonable? You have two examples here of just exactly what Streak has asserted in the post; the Family Research Council and Wiley Drake, SBC pastor from So Cal. It would not take long to provide you with more.
Yet you assert some generic statement; "Oh, everyone knows that." If so, certainly an example or two wouldn't be hard to provide.
And you should listen to the Bootlegger. Bootlegger is good, Bootlegger is wise.
Tony,
Here's an example: Kerry Seeks Support in Black Churches, Washington Post 10/11/04, page A04
Streak,
I didn't ignore your posts, I read all of them.
I agree that the Bootlegger is wise. We should listen to him more.
Curtis, you may read, but you certainly don't understand. Clearly. I agreed that politicians go speak at churches. Read what I said earlier.
But I doubt you will.
Kudos on you for doing a little homework and contributing meaningfully.
But, did you happen to overlook that Americans United also held Friendship Missionary Baptist Church and Gaston Smith to the same standard you're saying isn't held?
Don't tell me you think our black brethren go unnoticed in this arena. We here might think that would be slightly racial on your part.
And by the way, Curtis, this is not a bipartisan effort to help churches make informed decisions. This bespeaks of cold manipulation on behalf of the FRC, an organization who is supposed to promote "values."
Tony,
That's another example of a black church endorsing a candidate.
Did the IRS do anything about it?
Americans United has to turn in a liberal church occasionally in order to keep up the pretense they are unbiased.
Streak,
Not responding to everything you say does not equate to not understanding.
That's another example of a black church endorsing a candidate.
No, Curtis, it isn't; it is the same church you cited in your above comment and it is AU's reproval. Good grief, Streak is right. You don't read well.
Americans United has to turn in a liberal church occasionally in order to keep up the pretense they are unbiased.
Sigh. That is your opinion.
So, Curtis, when I note that white politicians regularly attend white churches in the election cycle, you just ignore that? as well as the distinction between allowing a speaker and instructing the flock how to vote?
You are not very impressive.
Tony,
You are right. I did not read the entire article I cited from the Washington Post. My mistake.
Do you agree with and support Americans United?
Streak,
I know politicians sometimes speak in white churches. My point is that black churches routinely get a pass on candidate endorsements while conservative churches are more often criticized for doing similar things.
I don't necessarily have a problem with churches being involved in the politcal process. But it would be good if the laws were applied equally. I expect that problem will continue to worsen and that someday soon, conservative churches will have to either give up their tax exemption, or keep quiet on issues in the political arena.
Thanks, guys. I will say Streak has called me "wise" plenty of times before, but it is always followed by the word "ass". I think he's probably just typing too fast this time and forgot to put it in:-)
There's legal experts on this blog that can speak more to this, but rather than saying one church tradition or another has gotten a "pass" in the past I'd say "churches" have pretty well gotten passes all along. Unless I'm mistaken only one bona fide church has lost it's tax exempt status and that was over a full page ad in the NY Times (see this link). I think the IRS is very hesitant to go after churches as opposed to other non-profits due to the other constitutional protections they get. I'm not an attorney, but from what I've read I understand that these would be quite the challenge legally. I'm sure they could be PR nightmares. So, while I'd like to see more of these cases, I know it ain't going to happen and every church flavor will probably continue to get a pass when political candidates speak at the church, the pastor makes statements in a sermon, or on other basically internal activities of the church.
The difference here to me is the premeditated intent for an organization to promote churches to intentionally challenge the law. I think the IRS will have no choice but to file suit on these guys. Not only that, the FRC is a 501(c)3 that in their materials states "...as a 501(c)(3) research and education organization, we are legally prohibited from endorsing any candidate for public office." So, they're carefully telling other non-profits to risk their tax exempt status while protecting their own. If the IRS does file suit I can't imaging the amount of money this will mean for these organizations. Jay Sekulow's mouth has to be watering.
The bigger picture for me on this argument isn't freedom of religion or political speech. I agree that it's best to err on the side of liberty when the pulpit is occasionally used for political speech. If, however, your church or non-profit wants to go further into partisan political activity, the law allows for that. You change over to a 501(c)4, contributions aren't tax deductible, contributions are reported, and you go right along with your political message. These guys, however, want the tax exempt contributions AND the partisan activities. It's about the money, not the freedom.
Do people really consider electoral politics such a priority in their church that they want to challenge their protections for it? If churches are allowed political endorsements, what about contributions? It's in the same code. Tax deductible, non-traceable donations being used to support candidates. Anyone else see what kind of money this could mean? Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but come to find out those back rooms do exist in religious organizations as well as political ones. Of course, I guess we don't need to make that distinction anymore.
Lastly, the majority of churches obey the law and many I've been involved in believe the law is good for them and everyone else. Unfortunately, some powerful players are more interested in political power and money than spiritual guidance.
Later- BB
Curtis? Gary?
Huh?
What is going on here?
It all comes down to this, as bootleg says. Give up your tax exempt status, have ur clergy, and your church (which is almost certainly a corporation in your state) pay all the taxes that everyone else pays, give up ALL those benefits,and hey u can do what you want.
Otherwise, stay within the law and 'Render unto Caesar'
Tony,
I was distracted and in a hurry. I have several aliases I use and just used the wrong one.
Wow. And I use my real name. Consistently.
Wow. And I use my real name. Consistently.
Freak.
BB's assessment is very accurate from what I can tell. Tax law is not my thing, but Con Law is. Yanking tax exempt status is not restricting freedon of speech or religion. That status is a perk and the gov't is not under any obligation to grant it.
The problem comes about if the IRS starts making a big deal about this and is accused of being inconsistent. I don't think they have a mechanism in place to monitor church acticity on a widespread basis that would be fair.
So, it seems I am late to the party again. We have pastors, lawyers, and small dogs all bringing relevant information to this discussion.
To ensure that Streak's Blog remains Fair and Balanced, we have Lon Cheney, the Man of 1000 Aliases. He contributes opinion, umbrage, and is not afraid to let limited reading comprehension interfere with a good argument.
Does that capture it?
Absolutely, ubub! A brilliant, cogent summary of the discussion so far. I eagerly await your insightful commentary and generous contributions to this discussion.
I think Streak is hot.
don't make me ban you two.
Post a Comment