- September 28, 2008 • 9:15 pm PDT
- + responses
What is going on this election cycle? Now preachers want the right to
endorse candidates from the pulpit? Charitable organizations should be
allowed to speak their minds on pieces of legislation which affect
their ability to accomplish their mission (which they can legally do as
a 501(c)3), but to endorse a political candidate is completely
inappropriate, ESPECIALLY for a church. Beyond just tax law, however,
there's a whole other issue here. Whatever happened to separation of
church and state? Why do these preachers feel as though their rights
are being suppressed by not being able to endorse someone for office
from the pulpit? Isn't the point of religion to bring people together
on common ground to live a peaceful life?
We're wadding into
dangerous waters here if we, as a society, allow our religious
organizations to become this political. I'm all for freedom of speech,
but as individuals. When people start to come together, especially for
charitable or religious reasons, it's important to create an open
environment where people feel allowed to share their opinions. c3s are
supposed to be creating opportunities for discussions, not leading
them, and definitely not setting policy.
Listen, I understand
what these folks are trying to accomplish, but they should take their
cause up independent of their churches. A place to pray is no place to
create divisions.
By the way, notice how the title of the
article is "Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates." They're
not just defying the IRS, but public trust in my opinion. We trust our
religious leaders to be without judgment and to rise above petty
bickering and this act of defiance can almost be seen as a betrayal. We
trusted them to be neutral in such matters and some through it right
back in our face. As Americans, preachers should be allowed and
encouraged to participate in the political process but should fill the
role of teacher and philosopher, not campaigner while on the job.
In any case, read on and decide where you stand.
Taken from The New York Times on September 26, 2008.
"""""
Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates
By Laurie Goodstein
Defying
a federal tax law they consider unjust, 33 ministers across the country
will take to their pulpits this Sunday and publicly endorse a candidate
for president.
They plan to then send copies of their sermons to
the Internal Revenue Service, hoping to provoke a challenge to a law
that bars religious organizations and other nonprofits that accept
tax-deductible contributions from involvement in partisan political
campaigns.
The protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, was
organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of Christian
lawyers that fights for conservative religious and social causes. When
the fund first announced the protest this year, it said it planned to
have 50 ministers taking part. As of Thursday it said it had hundreds
of volunteers, but had selected only 33 who were fully aware of the
risks and benefits.
The fund did not make the list of
participants public, saying that it had received phone calls
threatening to disrupt the sermons. One participant reached by
telephone said he could not talk about it.
Another participant,
the Rev. Luke Emrich of New Life Church, a small evangelical church in
West Bend, Wis., demurred when asked which candidate he planned to
endorse on Sunday.
"I would say endorsement is a strong word,"
he said. "I'm planning to make a recommendation. I'm going to evaluate
each candidate's positions in light of Scripture and make a
recommendation to my congregation as to which candidate aligns more so."
The
fund provides legal support for religious conservatives who have long
felt aggrieved at what they say are limits on their religious
expression.
Organizers said they wanted a range of clergy of
various faiths and political persuasions to join the protest, but
acknowledged that the participants might be "weighted" toward the
conservative end of the spectrum and more likely to support the
Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, than the Democrat, Senator
Barack Obama.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the
Alliance Defense Fund, said: "This is not something these churches want
to do in secrecy and hiding. In fact, they don't believe they're doing
anything wrong. They don't believe they're violating the law.
"What
they're doing is talking to their congregations about biblical issues
related to candidates and elections, and they believe they have the
constitutional right to do that."
The protest is challenging an
amendment to the tax code passed by Congress in 1954 saying that
charitable organizations known as 501(c)(3)'s, which accept
tax-deductible contributions, cannot intervene in political campaigns.
The legislation was intended to prevent nonprofit organizations from
funneling money and resources to political candidates.
Many
members of the clergy support the ban on politicking from the pulpit.
Nearly 30 clergy members, some leaders of denominations, signed a
pledge recently vowing to refrain from endorsing candidates. The pledge
was distributed by the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal religious
advocacy group.
In the last decade, church politicking has drawn
increasing scrutiny. Organizations like Americans United for Separation
of Church and State have made a show of reporting churches to the
I.R.S. to deter transgressors.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, of Americans
United, said of the protest on Sunday: "They act like this is a massive
act of civil disobedience, but this is not like sitting in at a lunch
counter. This is trying to change the law to give certain conservative
churches even more political clout."
A spokesman for the I.R.S.
said that the agency was aware of Pulpit Freedom Sunday and "will
monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."
Experts
in tax law say it is more likely that the Alliance Defense Fund and its
lawyers will face legal sanctions than the ministers, who may simply
receive warnings to avoid politicking in the future.
Three
former I.R.S. officials, now lawyers in a Washington firm, recently
sent a letter to the I.R.S.'s Office of Professional Responsibility
urging that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers be investigated
for "inducing churches to engage in conduct designed to violate federal
tax law in a direct and blatant matter."
One of the three who
signed the letter, Marcus Owens, the former director of the division of
tax-exempt organizations, said, "The ethics issue is a very real one,
and the I.R.S. and the Department of Justice cannot be seen as blinking
when lawyers or C.P.A.'s counsel people in how to violate the tax law."
The
organizers of Pulpit Freedom Sunday are convinced that the protest will
result in a court challenge to the law. Mr. Stanley said the law was so
unclear that, "I anticipate getting to federal court, certainly the
appeals court." But Robert W. Tuttle, a professor of law and religion
at the George Washington University Law School, found that unlikely.
"It's
settled law," Professor Tuttle said. "People can unsettle law that's
settled, but I think that it is very, very unlikely that a lower
federal court would reach any other conclusion except that religious
organizations have no constitutional right to engage in political
speech while accepting deductible contributions."
"""""
endorse candidates from the pulpit? Charitable organizations should be
allowed to speak their minds on pieces of legislation which affect
their ability to accomplish their mission (which they can legally do as
a 501(c)3), but to endorse a political candidate is completely
inappropriate, ESPECIALLY for a church. Beyond just tax law, however,
there's a whole other issue here. Whatever happened to separation of
church and state? Why do these preachers feel as though their rights
are being suppressed by not being able to endorse someone for office
from the pulpit? Isn't the point of religion to bring people together
on common ground to live a peaceful life?
We're wadding into
dangerous waters here if we, as a society, allow our religious
organizations to become this political. I'm all for freedom of speech,
but as individuals. When people start to come together, especially for
charitable or religious reasons, it's important to create an open
environment where people feel allowed to share their opinions. c3s are
supposed to be creating opportunities for discussions, not leading
them, and definitely not setting policy.
Listen, I understand
what these folks are trying to accomplish, but they should take their
cause up independent of their churches. A place to pray is no place to
create divisions.
By the way, notice how the title of the
article is "Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates." They're
not just defying the IRS, but public trust in my opinion. We trust our
religious leaders to be without judgment and to rise above petty
bickering and this act of defiance can almost be seen as a betrayal. We
trusted them to be neutral in such matters and some through it right
back in our face. As Americans, preachers should be allowed and
encouraged to participate in the political process but should fill the
role of teacher and philosopher, not campaigner while on the job.
In any case, read on and decide where you stand.
Taken from The New York Times on September 26, 2008.
"""""
Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates
By Laurie Goodstein
Defying
a federal tax law they consider unjust, 33 ministers across the country
will take to their pulpits this Sunday and publicly endorse a candidate
for president.
They plan to then send copies of their sermons to
the Internal Revenue Service, hoping to provoke a challenge to a law
that bars religious organizations and other nonprofits that accept
tax-deductible contributions from involvement in partisan political
campaigns.
The protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, was
organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of Christian
lawyers that fights for conservative religious and social causes. When
the fund first announced the protest this year, it said it planned to
have 50 ministers taking part. As of Thursday it said it had hundreds
of volunteers, but had selected only 33 who were fully aware of the
risks and benefits.
The fund did not make the list of
participants public, saying that it had received phone calls
threatening to disrupt the sermons. One participant reached by
telephone said he could not talk about it.
Another participant,
the Rev. Luke Emrich of New Life Church, a small evangelical church in
West Bend, Wis., demurred when asked which candidate he planned to
endorse on Sunday.
"I would say endorsement is a strong word,"
he said. "I'm planning to make a recommendation. I'm going to evaluate
each candidate's positions in light of Scripture and make a
recommendation to my congregation as to which candidate aligns more so."
The
fund provides legal support for religious conservatives who have long
felt aggrieved at what they say are limits on their religious
expression.
Organizers said they wanted a range of clergy of
various faiths and political persuasions to join the protest, but
acknowledged that the participants might be "weighted" toward the
conservative end of the spectrum and more likely to support the
Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, than the Democrat, Senator
Barack Obama.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the
Alliance Defense Fund, said: "This is not something these churches want
to do in secrecy and hiding. In fact, they don't believe they're doing
anything wrong. They don't believe they're violating the law.
"What
they're doing is talking to their congregations about biblical issues
related to candidates and elections, and they believe they have the
constitutional right to do that."
The protest is challenging an
amendment to the tax code passed by Congress in 1954 saying that
charitable organizations known as 501(c)(3)'s, which accept
tax-deductible contributions, cannot intervene in political campaigns.
The legislation was intended to prevent nonprofit organizations from
funneling money and resources to political candidates.
Many
members of the clergy support the ban on politicking from the pulpit.
Nearly 30 clergy members, some leaders of denominations, signed a
pledge recently vowing to refrain from endorsing candidates. The pledge
was distributed by the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal religious
advocacy group.
In the last decade, church politicking has drawn
increasing scrutiny. Organizations like Americans United for Separation
of Church and State have made a show of reporting churches to the
I.R.S. to deter transgressors.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, of Americans
United, said of the protest on Sunday: "They act like this is a massive
act of civil disobedience, but this is not like sitting in at a lunch
counter. This is trying to change the law to give certain conservative
churches even more political clout."
A spokesman for the I.R.S.
said that the agency was aware of Pulpit Freedom Sunday and "will
monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."
Experts
in tax law say it is more likely that the Alliance Defense Fund and its
lawyers will face legal sanctions than the ministers, who may simply
receive warnings to avoid politicking in the future.
Three
former I.R.S. officials, now lawyers in a Washington firm, recently
sent a letter to the I.R.S.'s Office of Professional Responsibility
urging that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers be investigated
for "inducing churches to engage in conduct designed to violate federal
tax law in a direct and blatant matter."
One of the three who
signed the letter, Marcus Owens, the former director of the division of
tax-exempt organizations, said, "The ethics issue is a very real one,
and the I.R.S. and the Department of Justice cannot be seen as blinking
when lawyers or C.P.A.'s counsel people in how to violate the tax law."
The
organizers of Pulpit Freedom Sunday are convinced that the protest will
result in a court challenge to the law. Mr. Stanley said the law was so
unclear that, "I anticipate getting to federal court, certainly the
appeals court." But Robert W. Tuttle, a professor of law and religion
at the George Washington University Law School, found that unlikely.
"It's
settled law," Professor Tuttle said. "People can unsettle law that's
settled, but I think that it is very, very unlikely that a lower
federal court would reach any other conclusion except that religious
organizations have no constitutional right to engage in political
speech while accepting deductible contributions."
"""""
.JPG)
