1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

originally posted by: Serdgiam

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Still tax them, just let them deduct what they give out in charity from their taxable income, like everybody else does. This way, we ensure than they really give into the community more than they take out.

Nah, I am looking at more broad solutions. Multiple birds with one stone, or something like that. I don't have any confidence our current system will simply fix itself.

When the CEO of a charitable tax exempt organization makes a million dollars per, there is something wrong there.

Agreed

Pastors running "charities" while driving Mercedes and wearing Rolexes are not "charitable."

No doubt about that!

You are quite right, whatever the rules are, there are those who will try to get around them. I guess that's why I tend to be of the "no tax exemption for anyone" camp as it seems the most equitable and easiest way to do it. Adding ten thousand more lines to the tax code will not help matters.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: windword
1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

It seems there is a movement from the Religious Right to "strategically litigate", up to the Supreme Court, a "Church's" right to endorse or slam a political candidate, without loosing their Tax Exempt Status.

Called Pulpit Freedom Sunday and organized by the Arizona-based conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, nearly 1,500 pastors across the country took part this year during an election cycle in which same-sex marriage and abortion have become major issues between Democratic and GOP rivals.

The preachers are hoping that the political sermons in the vast number of churches will eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court having to rule on the controversial tax law.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.Newsmax.com...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Here's an example:

Preaching Politics, Pastors Defy Ban
Pastors Can Endorse Candidates if They Give Up Their Tax Exemption

LA MESA, Calif.—Pastor Jim Garlow began his preaching with a Scripture-filled discussion of Jesus’ disgust with hypocrisy—typical fare for a Sunday sermon. But the conservative pastor finished with an exhortation to his congregation of nearly 2,000 to oppose Carl DeMaio, the openly gay Republican candidate for the state’s 52nd congressional district.

--------------

The evangelical Protestant pastor’s sermon had a political agenda, and a larger legal goal: It was an intentional violation of the law forbidding churches to engage in certain political speech meant to force U.S. courts to confront the issue. Churches registered as 501(c)3 nonprofits risk losing their tax-exempt status if they appear to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit.

I say NO! NO! NO! Sue them and take their Tax Exempt Status away, STAT!

Pastors and Priests and their "churches" are meant to minister to the spirit and address the choices of "salvation and repentance", not to use their position from the pulpit, as some supposed holy spokesperson, to try to limit individual choices and outlaw the perceived sins that they think need repentance!

Churches need to stop trying to legislate their biases and intolerance from the pulpit, and need to stay the ## out of the election and legislation process!

What say you ATS?

I don't see the churches in your OP that would espouse progressive or leftist political ideologies.

I would hope that you would be inclusive in your OP, but if you are simply targeting churches that promote a more conservative ideology than this is nothing mkore than an attempt at silencing the opposition.

Well, that's the true answer. Leftist Pastors such as Reverend Wright and anti-gun activists like Father Michael Pfleger get a pass.

Who's giving them a pass?

I don't think I've ever seen as much a large demand nor official attempt to prosecute them. Same question to you, should Planned Parenthood lose it's tax exempt status due to it's political activism and candidate endorsements and lobbying?

I don't actually see the comparison.

Religion should be about religion, about God. I do not support churches being political from the pulpit.

However, that doesn't mean parishioners can't form special interest groups. I believe many charities that affiliate with specific beliefs are actually separate from the church itself.

Does not matter if it's a church or not. If you have tax exempt status under that provision of the bill, you are not permitted to endorse politically.

I'm obviously not an expert here. I usually try to stay in opinion based discussions ----- because fact debates require research (unless you just don't care).

Are you sure Planned Parenthood is Tax Exempt?

Seems to me it is not --- but, has specific funding groups from government that are tax exempt.

Kind of like what I suggested of churches (special interest group separate from church), only in reverse. Specific "group" is tax exempt, but Planned Parenthood by itself is not.

From their very own website:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., is recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation by the Internal Revenue Service. A copy of our IRS tax-exempt status letter is available upon request.

originally posted by: windword

I'm fairly certain that Planned Parenthood has their legal "ducks in a row" so to speak.

Yes, that's what I found.

If you donate to Planned Parenthood, you can not write it off as a tax deduction, because they are not tax exempt.

You have to specify that your donation goes to a tax except fund.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword

I'm fairly certain that Planned Parenthood has their legal "ducks in a row" so to speak.

Yes, that's what I found.

If you donate to Planned Parenthood, you can not write it off as a tax deduction, because they are not tax exempt.

You have to specify that your donation goes to a tax except fund.

That's not what their website says:

If you are having issues with this form, click here.

LAST CHANCE! Make your tax-deductible year-end gift to Planned Parenthood now to have it DOUBLED!


This is it: every dollar you contribute to Planned Parenthood Federation of America donors will be matched, up to a total match of $350,000. Don't miss this special opportunity to double your impact.

Your matched gift today will support our local and national efforts to help ensure that the millions of women, men, and young people who rely on Planned Parenthood every day can continue to access the care they need, no matter what.

Just fill out the form below to make your tax-deductible gift to Planned Parenthood Federation of America now.

secure.ppaction.org... +network&utm_medium=mobile+banner&utm_campaign=winter+donate

Your contribution is tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. For tax purposes, IRS regulations require us to state that we did not provide any goods or services to you in consideration of your contribution.

Nonprofit Status
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., is recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation by the Internal Revenue Service. A copy of our IRS tax-exempt status letter is available upon request.

www.plannedparenthood.planyourlegacy.org...

So, again, should PP have it's tax exempt, 501(c)(3), status revoked due to political campaigning and lobbying?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword

I'm fairly certain that Planned Parenthood has their legal "ducks in a row" so to speak.

Yes, that's what I found.

If you donate to Planned Parenthood, you can not write it off as a tax deduction, because they are not tax exempt.

You have to specify that your donation goes to a tax except fund.

Tax exemption for Planned Parenthood?

They are tricky aren't they.

So, PP has a:

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[14][15] There are also supporting organizations—often referred to in shorthand form as "Friends of" organizations.

Podlitical activity
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[35][36] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.[37]

They also have a separate fund for political contributions.

Basically they're doing as I suggested. They keep their politics separate.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You are quite right, whatever the rules are, there are those who will try to get around them. I guess that's why I tend to be of the "no tax exemption for anyone" camp as it seems the most equitable and easiest way to do it. Adding ten thousand more lines to the tax code will not help matters.

That insinuates that the government will more effectively use those finances than private institutions, and I have my doubts about that.. I don't trust organizations like the IRS any more than that pastor driving the Mercedes, but perhaps we differ on that point.

I am more interested in effective solutions than easy ones. Simplicity is good though, and equal application is imperative.

I certainly wouldn't be interested in adding much of anything to the tax code, perhaps there is a misunderstanding on what I am suggesting. Regardless, going into it may be considered off topic as it doesn't single out institutions, and also targets the government itself with the same expectations. Essentially, its a new type of economic interaction rather than a modification of the current, thoroughly corrupt system.

I would encourage others to ponder the same. With modern technology, it enables us to accomplish goals and systems that were literally unimaginable just decades ago.

originally posted by: Annee
So, PP has a:

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[14][15] There are also supporting organizations—often referred to in shorthand form as "Friends of" organizations.

Podlitical activity
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[35][36] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.[37]

They also have a separate fund for political contributions.

Basically they're doing as I suggested. They keep their politics separate.

Kind of like corporations who make shell accounts offshore to avoid taxes. So if the church had just created a separate corporate entity( run by the same people actually with the same money just shuffled about) that'd be cool with you then.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I would agree to that as long as every other tax exempt put politically active groups, such as unions, planned parenthood, environmental groups, also lose their tax exempt status. The same rules for all is the only fair and just answer to the question.

Funny how all the "Equality" preachers in this thread are totally ignoring your perfectly valid point.

I started to join a union once. Til this day I still get emails from them asking me to support Democratic candidates. In fact, the ONLY emails I get from them are about political issues and they're damn near demanding that I go vote for their cause of the month.

And that's the entire point. The way this game is played is to silence political thought you don't like, but protect that which you do like and support your supporters while squashing your opposition.

Churches, IMHO, that are politically active should not be tax exempt. However, that should also be applied to EVERY tax exempt organization that is politically active, not just churches and not just politically conservative churches. The same rules should apply to everyone.

I agree remove all organizations from tax exempt.

a reply to: NavyDoc

So, again, should PP have it's tax exempt, 501(c)(3), status revoked due to political campaigning and lobbying?

All 1,500, or so, pastors/preachers from the OP are welcome to do as Planned Parenthood did. Many other religious institutions have created a "Religious Advocacy Group".

There is no need to campaign or lobby from the pulpit.

The answer to the big mystery (not) is:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., is a tax-exempt corporation under Internal Revenue Service code section 501(c)(3) and is not a private foundation (Tax ID #13-1644147). Contributions are tax-deductible.

The IRS classifies the Planned Parenthood Action Fund as a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax-deductible. [Planned Parenthood, 2007-2008 reports, accessed 5/31/12]

Further:

The promotion of social welfare does not include participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate. Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii). An exempt IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. IRC 501(c)(4) organizations are subject to the tax imposed by IRC 527 on any expenditure for a political activity that comes within the meaning of IRC 527(e)(2). See Rev. Rul. 81-95, 1981-1 C.B. 332. [Internal Revenue Service, 2/8/1999]

Source

Taa Daa.

originally posted by: alexball
Religion is the divine arm of Politics. To ban preaching politics is to effectively castrate a religion.
I can understand why the Judeo-Masonic elites would want pastors to limit their sermons to that which cannot threaten them.

They should continue to say what they believe but no free ride from the tax system. Equal tax for all organization regardless of purpose. I am not against free speech. I am against some people thinking they are special and have a right to have a free ride based on their views no matter what their views are.

And to quote Mark 12

They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?

Shall we pay or shall we not pay?" But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at."

They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's."

And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

So, again, should PP have it's tax exempt, 501(c)(3), status revoked due to political campaigning and lobbying?

All 1,500, or so, pastors/preachers from the OP are welcome to do as Planned Parenthood did. Many other religious institutions have created a "Religious Advocacy Group".

There is no need to campaign or lobby from the pulpit.

That's what I said.

Honestly, I think a congregation, which are individuals should not be pressured politically.

I think there should be political groups they can independently be a part of if they choose.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Well, I believe some people are special, and others less deserving - a tenet of Traditionalism that I hold dear. We can agree to disagree.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I would agree to that as long as every other tax exempt put politically active groups, such as unions, planned parenthood, environmental groups, also lose their tax exempt status. The same rules for all is the only fair and just answer to the question.

The same rules don't apply because they don't all have the same tax status. I see you didn't read the link I posted for you in that other thread here it is again. 501(c) organization

a reply to: grandmakdw

Liberals just won't agree with that because they think that they are right and everyone else is stupid, ignorant, and wrong and needs to be guided into the light of progressive thinking, by any and all means possible.

OK I keep seeing people try to make this into a left right thing and it is really befuddling how those of you doing it can come to that conclusion. Did any of you read the article?

In his sermon on Sunday, evangelical pastor Jim Garlow, of the Skyline Church in San Diego, called on his congregation of 2,000 to vote against gay Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio

Garlow told his congregation that he's backing Democratic Rep. Scott Peters

Are you all saying liberals are so cool that they would be up in arms defending republican candidate??

Maybe you guys are just wrong and this isn't about being a liberal or conservative but about what is legal and what isn't.

If I am wrong feel free to explain how this is a liberal thing considering the church is endorsing a Democrat.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: NavyDoc

I would agree to that as long as every other tax exempt put politically active groups, such as unions, planned parenthood, environmental groups, also lose their tax exempt status. The same rules for all is the only fair and just answer to the question.

The same rules don't apply because they don't all have the same tax status. I see you didn't read the link I posted for you in that other thread here it is again. 501(c) organization

I did but you did miss the entire point. That there are many different rules and exemptions and loopholes for many different organizations is part of the problem. That there is varying enforcement of said rules based on political expedience and agenda is part of the problem. That they exist, which is what you are focusing on, is not in question.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you pay taxes, then you're a slave. Its quite simple too understand, if we were truly free we wouldn't have to pay any taxes now would we? The only reason large corporations even pay taxes is to stay out of public scrutiny, because that would be "bad for business". I would have thought that people would be supporting the removal of taxes on the lower and middle class rather than being "ok" with it, while endorsing the removal of the tax exempt status of the Church. Nonetheless, I am not against the removal of tax exempt status of the Church either, I just don't see the logic in supporting taxation.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: grandmakdw

Liberals just won't agree with that because they think that they are right and everyone else is stupid, ignorant, and wrong and needs to be guided into the light of progressive thinking, by any and all means possible.

OK I keep seeing people try to make this into a left right thing and it is really befuddling how those of you doing it can come to that conclusion. Did any of you read the article?

In his sermon on Sunday, evangelical pastor Jim Garlow, of the Skyline Church in San Diego, called on his congregation of 2,000 to vote against gay Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio

Garlow told his congregation that he's backing Democratic Rep. Scott Peters

Are you all saying liberals are so cool that they would be up in arms defending republican candidate??

Maybe you guys are just wrong and this isn't about being a liberal or conservative but about what is legal and what isn't.

If I am wrong feel free to explain how this is a liberal thing considering the church is endorsing a Democrat.

I don't think that many of them even got that. They just assume that someone speaking out against a gay guy is a conservative republican.

As for identity politics, one is expected to fit a mold based on race or gender or sexuality. For example, the awful things said about African American conservatives by allegedly tolerant and pro-diversity type people.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't think that many of them even got that. They just assume that someone speaking out against a gay guy is a conservative republican.

I think you are probably right. I first read the article and then started to read the thread and some of the replies making it a left right thing made me reread the article several times because I couldn't equate what they were saying with what had been written in the article.

The best I can describe my reaction is the cognitive dissonance was strong. It actually started to give me a headache. So thankyou for speaking up because for a minute I was thinking it was all me.