1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

If a "Church" is politically active, why is that different from a union or any other special interest tax free group. At least most American religious organizations do charitable things -- feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, comfort the unfortunate, support orphanages, provide hospitals, etc.
Unless you are muslim. Think Mother Teresa vs ISIS beheadings. If muslim provide any charity, it is not widely known.
Could you accept torture and killings as a form of birth control?

There was a women that went to the same church as I did in TX. This women was very anti-abortion and well she made it quite evident that she was every week. But ya know what this lady wasn't that politically active I don't think. She was very effective though at preventing abortions! She would find the pregnant women who were considering abortion and well she would open up another path for them, make the option of having the baby not so scary. She spent much of her time and money helping them- running to doctor's appointments, helping them get housing ect. And she stayed with them even after the babies were born! She probably still is there to offer them a helping hand if needed.

I think this is where the churches got off track. They are less willing to offer that helping hand and too quick to judgement! They would do much more good if they would just go back to their main message and find some faith and trust that their God can make any changes he desires within the members of his church as well as the world that they abide in!
Instead they chose to jump in bed with a bunch of lying cheating dirty politicians to force the changes that THEY want. Only if you jump into the mudpit with the politician swine you will be getting your nice clean white robes filthy dirty! The christian right was a main force in getting bush elected.... how many christians now feel that they were had by the guy???

Teach salvation, good morals, yes speak up about laws that you feel might adversely effect the church but don't get too chummy with anyone in the political arena! Most of the politicians are building their abode in the lake of fire with each lie that they tell and they seem to tell many!

a reply to: searching411

actually it was the charity that got the taliban (along with al quada money) their strong hold in afghanistan.
same goes with the palistinians. Heck in most of the arab countries that's how the radical muslims get a following. They help the poor and destitute at least long enough to get enough power to keep control.

by the way I wouldn't be surprised if the same tactics will be used in the western world in the near future by a different sort of radical group!

Wow; so much misinformation in this thread.

Let's try to clear some of that up, shall we? First we need to understand that there are 29 different forms of 501(c) designations that a non-profit can register under. Each of the 29 are governed by different regulations. There are several that apply in this thread; mainly 501(c) (3), (4), and (5).

The pertinent part of 501(c)(3) is the following:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

You can view the full regulations here.

This clearly prohibits church leaders, charity members, etc to speak on behalf of the charity, church, etc; or from a position of leadership of said charity in a politically active manner. Discussing political issues, and why certain stances are immoral is one thing; urging a particular action is another.

Next is 501(c)(4). From the IRS regulations:

Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax. For more information, see Lobbying Issues .

This is where groups like Planned Parenthood comes in. Their main branch is a 501(c)(3). This is the where everything done to help the community is managed, programs setup, etc. No one from Planned Parenthood speaks from a position of authority for/or against a particular candidate or acts in a political manner in order to further their goals. They have Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is a 501(c)(4) group, for such things.

Now unions fall under 501(c)(5). They too are allowed political activities.

Seeking legislation germane to the labor or agricultural organization's programs is recognized as a permissible means of attaining its exempt purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(5) organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. However, a section 501(c)(5) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax. The exempt purposes of a labor or agricultural organization do not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. A section 501(c)(5) labor or agricultural organization may engage in some political activities, however, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditures it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

You can read it in full here.

The main point of all of this is to point out that while there are many 501(c) programs out there that do indeed get involved in politics, only those that file as 501(C)(3) are forbidden from doing so without risking their tax exempt status. As a pastor myself, I fully support this. No one should use their position of authority to try to coerce others into voting in the way the authority figure thinks is best. Urge the people to vote, yes. Urge them to study the issues and come to an informed conclusion, yes. Provide them with moral guidance, yes. Tell them who to vote for? Hell no. We get enough of that from politicians. We don't need it form the people who are supposed to be helping to protect their souls.

a reply to: tebyen

Awesome post! Thanks for the info!



a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh dear! You need to ask for your money back!

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Wait, so you have to be a "taxpayer" to speak politics? Here I thought it was just because we are and not dependant upon our "taxpayer" status...

Didn't the original Constitution require that to be a part of American Politics one must first be a white, male, land owner?

originally posted by: tebyen
As a pastor myself, I fully support this. No one should use their position of authority to try to coerce others into voting in the way the authority figure thinks is best. Urge the people to vote, yes. Urge them to study the issues and come to an informed conclusion, yes. Provide them with moral guidance, yes. Tell them who to vote for? Hell no. We get enough of that from politicians. We don't need it form the people who are supposed to be helping to protect their souls.

Thank you. I bolded part and posted this paragraph by itself. It should not be missed.

People go to church for many reasons. Some go just for serenity and the singing/music. They are a captive audience ---- that should not be forced or subjected to the politics of their church pastor/preacher/deacon/reverend etc.

Just because someone is religious or just wants the experience of "spirit" does not mean they are political or even have that inclination.

If groups want/choose to form separate from the pulpit ---- go for it!

a reply to: windword

Greetings and Salutations- "Yes, please" Lets start taxing the Church™ We will stop the taxing when TheChurch™ does what it was designed to do, provide "charity" but now that onus has fallen upon "Uncle Suga" and the lines have gotten looooonger. Why? Because TheChurch™ is too busy politicking OR building MORE Churches™ Why? Because TheChurch™ is paying "hush $$" to victims of molestation.. Why? Why should TheChurch™ continue to 'rake it in' and $pend it, not on "The Flock" but perpetuating a product that is FREE? GOD is FREE! Wasn't Jesus purported to say "You are TheChurch™"? If You agree with this statement, do You think Jesus meant We were supposed to be TAX FREE? Wasn't it because Jesus made mention of building Churches™; gold in the pockets of TheChurch™ elders? and so forth, that "they" killed Him and pinned it on His bff, Judas? If I am TheChurch™ why would I 'go to' Church™?

I'd opine if it were another religion™ that these 'thumpers' didn't 'side with', they'd be the first ones to pee and moan about it.

The whole while the Preacher lies from the pulpit on Sunday wearing a $35k watch, living in a $3M mansion, cheating on His 3rd Wife with 2 members of the choir, but has enough audacity to continue to cash the check of His parishioners who haven't a pot to pee in nor a window to toss it out of... See: L.A. Preachers.. If "they" can paint w/a broad stroke so can those of Us that don't need a "rule book" to Live and do our communing with God One on One, no "middle man" to distort the message; No more getting another's interpretation of what 'they' "felt" 'thought' "believed" ...

I'd vote for starting to tax the NFL™ right after religion™ , but religion™ is the first that needs to quit the charade or do Your J O B. But for those un-affiliated, if the 'You are TheChurch™' doesn't get "them" off Your doorstep, try "Charity begins at home"...

namaste

P.S. Maybe if We get enough members together We can start our own religion™ First thing We'd need is an accountant, then a lawyer... When the $$$ starts to roll in We could actually do some good.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Tangerine

There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived

That's funny, the history class I took at college in extremely liberal/progressive Massachusetts taught Jesus is historically proven to have existed (as a person).

Thanks. I didn't even want to get started on that argument.
Ask Josephus if they have any questions about his existence.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Tangerine

There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived

That's funny, the history class I took at college in extremely liberal/progressive Massachusetts taught Jesus is historically proven to have existed (as a person).

Thanks. I didn't even want to get started on that argument.
Ask Josephus if they have any questions about his existence.

I've been following the "is there or is there not" a real Jesus debate for about 20 years.

Yes. There was a real man serious researchers believe is the "man of the myth".

You could call him a political agitator. And, yes he was sentenced and put to death.

So yeah, the original guy probably preached politics. But, he wasn't tax exempt.

a reply to: Annee

Well, this is only relevant passage to the "did he or did he not exist" argument in this thread.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

I'm not fan of religion, especially the fact that they think they should be tax-exempt considering the trend of mega churches and someof the salaries their pastors and administrators make, but what most bothersome about this is their hypocrisy concerning taxes.

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

"Yes, he does," he replied...(blah blah blah...they paid their taxes)

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

If they worship Jesus, and paying taxes was good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for churches? Just another organized-religion hypcrisy...

a reply to: searching411

I think the big difference between a church and unions/special interest groups is the way they collect funds.

A union or special interest group has very specific rules on how they can raise money and they must account for that.

A church raises money by people tithing to the church....usually cash. So if a church is allowed to preach politics, a candidate could effectively throw money at the minister in exchange for him preaching a political message to an audience that already takes his word as "gospel"....and would not have to account for the money whatsoever.

So I think there is a huge difference between churches and the other groups mentioned.

N/M

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Tangerine

There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived

That's funny, the history class I took at college in extremely liberal/progressive Massachusetts taught Jesus is historically proven to have existed (as a person).

Then you'll be able to name one person who lived when Jesus lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living, right? I didn't think so. That would constitute historical evidence but there is none.

originally posted by: HillbillyHippie1
If you can tax anyone who has a political issue they wish to speak about, you might as well discard freedom of religion. A government or its people could make anything political, if they wanted too. Trying to tax religious organizations under the guise of the separation of church and state is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of, and only an idiot would not see it is meant to eradicate religious speech entirely.

If one wanted too, they could make the historicity of Jesus or reincarnation a political issue. Attempts to tax churches for their speech are merely attempts to create ground for making such things political to silence the religious. The religious see this, and the non-religious support it not having thought through the implications, for once the government clandestinely creates a religious group who speaks about what you want too, it will be taxed and have to government sanctioned as well.

That's utter rubbish. Churches CHOOSE to become tax exempt and, by CHOOSING to do so, they enter into a legal AGREEMENT to not engage in political activities. No one forces them to become tax exempt.

originally posted by: searching411
If a "Church" is politically active, why is that different from a union or any other special interest tax free group. At least most American religious organizations do charitable things -- feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, comfort the unfortunate, support orphanages, provide hospitals, etc.
Unless you are muslim. Think Mother Teresa vs ISIS beheadings. If muslim provide any charity, it is not widely known.
Could you accept torture and killings as a form of birth control?

You're terribly misinformed . Charity is one of the pillars of Islam and is called Zakat. A poll conducted in Britain determined that Muslims gave the most to charity of any religious group. At 371 British pounds, Muslims gave the most. Jews gave 270 pounds, Protestants 202 pounds and Roman Catholics 178.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

I hope this gives you some insight into how misinformed you really are.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: searching411

actually it was the charity that got the taliban (along with al quada money) their strong hold in afghanistan.
same goes with the palistinians. Heck in most of the arab countries that's how the radical muslims get a following. They help the poor and destitute at least long enough to get enough power to keep control.

by the way I wouldn't be surprised if the same tactics will be used in the western world in the near future by a different sort of radical group!

Right after he was elected for the first time, Bush gave $140 million to the Taliban on the pretext of encouraging them to not grow heroin poppies. Charity?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Tangerine

There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived

That's funny, the history class I took at college in extremely liberal/progressive Massachusetts taught Jesus is historically proven to have existed (as a person).

Thanks. I didn't even want to get started on that argument.
Ask Josephus if they have any questions about his existence.

Uh..Josephus is dead. Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Moreover, the comments about Jesus in the works of Josephus were forgeries inserted by the church in 400 AD, long after Josephus, himself, was dead. They're such poor quality forgeries that they used words not in use when Josephus was alive. Serious scholars long ago determined that Josephus never wrote about Jesus and it wouldn't have matter if he had. One can't witness the existence of someone who didn't live when they lived.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Tangerine

There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived

That's funny, the history class I took at college in extremely liberal/progressive Massachusetts taught Jesus is historically proven to have existed (as a person).

Thanks. I didn't even want to get started on that argument.
Ask Josephus if they have any questions about his existence.

I've been following the "is there or is there not" a real Jesus debate for about 20 years.

Yes. There was a real man serious researchers believe is the "man of the myth".

You could call him a political agitator. And, yes he was sentenced and put to death.

So yeah, the original guy probably preached politics. But, he wasn't tax exempt.

Prove it. Name one person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. That would be contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence).