It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Pulpit Freedom Sunday Confronts IRS
On Sunday more than 100 preachers will be speaking out on political issues and candidates in direct contravention of the IRS. And then each preacher will send a recording of their sermon to the IRS, challenging them to enforce the law. For the third year in a row, the last Sunday in September has witnessed a growing number of churches and their preachers directly confronting the IRS and daring the agency to come after them.
Sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, the strategy is designed to invoke enforcement of the so-called Johnson Amendment adopted by the IRS in 1954. The amendment was passed by proclamation after Johnson had been heavily criticized by Christian pastors for his personal behavior. The language of the amendment says that specifically, non-profit tax-exempt entities could not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” Ever since then, “Rather than risk confrontation, many pastors have self-censored their speech, afraid to apply the teachings of Scripture to specific candidates or elections.” According to Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the ADF:
This is really a tough one for the IRS. They’re telling pastors what they can and cannot say from the pulpit. I think the IRS realizes they’ve got a serious constitutional issue here.
In 2008, Pulpit Freedom Sunday involved more than 30 churches. In 2009, 83 congregations challenged the IRS, and that number could triple this year. And the IRS took the bait from only one church in those two years, the Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minnesota. Pastor Gus Booth had preached on moral issues as part of the Pulpit Freedom Sunday initiative, and his church underwent a nine-month investigation by the IRS. The IRS then closed the investigation, stating in its letter that “the IRS may commence a future inquiry to address the concerns described…after it resolves [a] procedural issue.”