Who Should Pay for Pulpit Politics?

A perfect example of the rift between conservative and liberal Christians. I'm not surprised to learn that it was conservative preachers taking this action, and not more moderate preachers. And yes, if they want to endorse politicians, then let their churches pay taxes, because they've stopped preaching the Gospel and become political actions groups.

I always find it odd that so many conservative Christians don't see the conflict between conservative politics and Biblical message. When you really consider the message of Christ, it's Obama who's actions are most consistent with the message, not McCain.

In the Gospels, we never find Christ trying to manipulate the state power of the Romans or influence its leaders, but instead He spoke to the hearts of the people, telling them that it was up to them to seek a change of heart and find their way to God.

After reading Obama's speech at Call to Renewal a few years ago, he stated that we all must search our hearts and be responsible for our actions, not have our behavior dictated to us by rote of law. On the other hand, nearly all the conservative Christians I know are very legalistic, and constantly point out the Old Testament laws to support their case and their candidate. More moderate Christians tend to look at Christ's message of love, and lean toward the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which preach looking outward and putting the needs of others ahead of our own.

The strength of our faith comes from a choice we make after searching our hearts and seeking to draw closer to Christ. Wagging our fingers at the behavior of others and trying to pass laws to prevent them from behaving a certain way is Old Testament legalism, and Christ condemned the Pharisees pretty harshly for similar behavior.

In the end, I don't find Obama's position morally confusing or anti-Christian. He actually best represents the ideal that we all be allowed to make our own decisions after searching our own hearts. With that ideal comes the risk of making a bad choice, but that's a risk I think we should all take, rather than have a government that tries to enforce morality upon us with laws. That won't work, and if the past few years have been any indication, the right no longer has the political upper hand when it comes to influencing politics. I'm happy to see that moderate and liberal Christians have found their public voices again, yet feel no need to endorse candidates from the pulpit.

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, SEVERITY; but toward thee, GOODNESS, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be CUT OFF. (Romans 11:22)

Obama is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. If he becomes president, the world should beware. God's SEVERITY will visit this world.

If this is truly going to be a fair discussion, then it must also extend to churches who feature political candidates like Barak Obama and allow them to speak on political matters from the pulpit as well. The church building should be a politician-free zone....period. It certainly appears that liberal churches can get away with injecting their politics with impunity however. It is hard enough for many conservative ministers who fear that if they speak out at any venue, not merely from the pulpit, that the IRS will be knocking on their door the next day. I know....I'm married to one of those conservative-leaning pastors who is afraid of speaking her personal views in any venue because of this.

For Spidermean2:

Isaiah 13:11:

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

fr spidermean2:

>Obama is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. ...

And that is precisely WHY my wife and I are voting for him! We want to keep our marriage legal, and have NO desire to be shoved back into the closet. McCain and the ice queen want to deny GLBT couples basic human and civil rights, and that is SO wrong.

So where's the honesty and responsibility on the part of these pastors? The tax exemption came with rules - that's why they were given. Now these conservative pastors feel free to break their word and the law in order to make political speeches? Some lesson they're teaching. I can think of 2 commandments you're breaking:

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

You're stealing money if you break the IRS law and you've lied, because you said you would abide by them.

If you want to be a 527, then openly and cleanly become one instead of hiding behind ye olde ministerial collar and expecting taxpayers to pay for it. Want to be a full participant in the political process- give up your church exemption and pay like I have to.

No taxation without representation- well, then the corollary is also true: No representation without taxation. Grow up, act like church leaders, not whining little GOP puppets. Want to force me to have a baby I don't want? Pay taxes. Want to tell Gays,and Lesbians they can't marry- pay your damn taxes, like they do.

And spidey2, if you want to debate this with me try doing it without the endless, self-interpretions (yeah yeah- only someone of your "intelligence" and sensitivity can understand what the prophecies mean, blah blah blah) and instead use some facts.

Religion is a business, like car shops and prostitution. It should be regulated and taxed.

Make the churches pay taxes. These Pastors are responsible to their congregations, and if thier Pastors choose to violate the law, let them all pay the price.

As to many of the comments above, I agree with those who would defend our individual right to choose. I do not choose to be a follower of Christ. What gives the Christian Right/Conservative Republicans the right to tell me how I should think, or act. I obey the law, I pay my taxes, and I spent 20 years defending the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic. Letting Gays enter into a civil union does not require any religion to recognize it or mandate that they perform a ceremony for them. Nor does it preclude them from worshiping as THEY choose. I guess in their minds, everyone is equal, they are just more equal (and apparently right)than the rest of us.

I don't really care what an individual preacher believes or what he decides to preach from the pulpit when it comes to politics. That said, if the people that pay the preacher to spout his political convictions agree with him, then the congregation should pay for the right to have a house of worship and politics. Not individual taxation, but pay PROPERTY TAXES. What with these monstrous mega churches spouting up and operating not unlike major corporations they should pay the community back for services and road repair that their facilities consumes. Also those churches that conduct private schooling where children are brainwashed should themselves have to pay tax on the income made like any other business that deals in supernatural dealings. Just because it says New Testament on the cover does not make it a history course.

I am amazed at the reaction to this. Since when is it a crime to peacably protest a law. King Jr. did this to oppose segregation, why can't pastors do it.

Besides, if you look at the argument being presented there is good reason to believe the law is unjust. Churches should not be governed by the government and should not have exceptions to free speech. Adding stipulations to some churches who say things you don't want is not free speech.

In the spirit of opposing unjust laws I think we should discuss why this law was put in place. Let's not lash out at churches because you oppose what they say. Remember the IRS could come up with a law that forbids you to speak out, unless you want to lose your tax breaks.

Deep in your heart, do you honestly believe McCain is sent by God? I have not seen anything about him to show he's comfortable with worship and that he is not shy about his relationship with the Lord. I see a lot of ungodly behavior but then who am I to judege.

As for Roe v Wade, haven't we realized by now that they use such issues to get elected knowing full well nothing's going to change. How many years have they been promising you these changes? Yet the deception continues.

tax all churches, particulary those mega-monsters. not only is there nothing in the constitution to prevent that, the tone of the tome is they should be. the non-profit idea was dreamed up later. strict-constructionist scalia might agree with that if he really were one.

It's not as easy a call as many posters seem to think it should be. Like it or not public officials make decisions affecting public morality. Many religious persons, including Christians, concern themselves at least somewhat with public morality. You may argue the points of view on public morality but to ask religious figures to put their religious conviction "in a box" in the public world is unrealistic. This may not be popular but it is a fact. To put the shoe on the other foot just for a moment, suppose there was a serious call to reduce or eliminate research grants to or public (generally state) support of public universities where prominent officials or lecturers take a political stance on any election or public initiative? This would, I suspect, rightly draw fairly uniform condemnation from the press. You can dress it up with any words you like but the idea of taxing (presumably non profit) churches or religious institutions that take a political stance is simply the alarm of left leaning persons who are alarmed at the prospect of a public forum that they are not in control of.

Regards,
KL

Tax ALL churches!

Why should I have to subsidize your religion? Pay your own damn property taxes, you parasites!

Spidermean,

Exactly where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is OK with preemptive wars that kill tens of thousands of civilians, or that He is in complete simpatico with policies that go the extra mile to make sure every American can own an Uzi if they choose? Or that He is right on board with "reforming" welfare out of existence, except when it comes to corporate welfare?

"If you love me, feed my sheep." Said thrice, when His disciples asked Him how they could best serve Him. NOT "if you love me, bomb abortion clinics and deny gays civil marriage."

This has nothing to do with the speech or press clauses of the first amendment and everything to do with the religion clause, which states that there shall be no "establishment of religion." That does not mean merely no establishment of this or that religion or sect or denomination or cult but of religion as such. The tax exemption, however, is intended to encourage religion as such, and is, therefore, in violation of the establishment clause. It should be repealed.

pcpatterson:

Spidey is hopeless. He never asks 'What would Jesus do?'. He only asks 'Who would Jesus bomb?'. He will never answer a question, or even try to explain anything. If anyone asks, he just says they are stupid. Emotionally, he seems about 4 years old.

Yes, yes, Sheriger....let's all search our hearts and then do what we want. So you want to murder your ex-wife? I'm sure after a quick search, you would find that you still want to kill her, so go for it. You want to sell drugs to underaged kids? Well, after you take your drugs (and search your heart of course) you will probably decide that you need the money. You want to steal from your local bank? Well, don't forget to search your heart while you load your gun...

Why do you think we have laws? Not because we all search our hearts and decide that we want to be better people. It doesn't work that way.

You say, "That's his right. But I'm not sure I want my taxes to subsidize Fairview's political outreach."

Actually your taxes are not subsidising these activities. After all, a business in, say, UK, does not pay US taxes, but that does not mean that your taxes are subsidising the UK business. I am not sending you my electric bills, but that does not mean I am subsidising your life. Not taxing is not taxing, it is NOT "subsidising." Please do not misuse language.

Actually, I QUITE agree with the conclusion that Churches which are political should pay taxes to the extent that they are political. But I don't buy your argument that you would be subsidising them if they are not taxed.

And I strongly suspect that had the Church said something positive about Obama, you would NOT have suggested taxing it. Have you ever suggested that Rev. Jackson or Rev. Jeremiah Wright - both of whom are pretty political - be taxed or are you just going after Churches which support Republicans?

"Obama is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. ..."

Actually the two issues are not connected. As far as I know, gay marriages do not involve killing anyone (or if you prefer a more brutal language, killing any"thing").

Gay marriages may or may not be pragmatically wise, but they certainly are not a violation of anyone's right to live.

Conservative Christians, and their liberal opponents, may link these two issues, but they have little in common.

These rebellious pastors believe God is using them but, in fact, they are only using God to back up their own backward political and moral views which too often, in my opinion, run 180 degrees counter to the teachings of Jesus.

I believe that each person finds his/her own way to God. I resent any religion that seeks to legislate the beliefs and code of behaviour of its adherents on others.

I think this article is correct, if churches are going to participate in the political process then their income should be taxed as ordinary income and taxed to the extent that it is not donated to truly charitable causes rather then the support of the church. Too many churches consume too much in the way of resources and contribute to little back based on their perceived good to the community. When their money and efforts go to political purposes then their activities stop being good for the community as a whole they should give back in a monetary form.

It has always confused me how a church could own a cable network or a theme park or even a 12 acres mega church and not pay a lick in taxes. None of those have a thing to do with worship but instead are very much of the world at large.

Now we have churches wanting to be political parties. I for one hope the IRS quietly notes the churches who are violating the law and then AFTER the election (because is obvious the churches want partisan press coverage) remove tax-exempt status from the violators.

Even though we're not directly subsidizing these churches when we don't make them pay taxes, many of their related activities--recreation centers, camps, restaurants compete with entities that have to pay taxes.

For instance, in Estes Park, Colorado the YMCA of the Rockies claimed it didn't have to pay taxes for it's campgrounds and lodge because it said it was a religious organization. Other businesses complained rightly that Y of the Rockies had an unfair advantage because other businesses DID have to pay taxes. I like the Y, but they should have to pay taxes like everyone else if they are going to indulge in non-religious services to the general public.

The same with churches, if they start behaving like businesses and start spouting their political views, then TAX 'em.

As a former pastor I would never back or endorse any candidate with a congregation's seal of approval. That's just wrong. But to folks like CCatmoon who call Christians parasites, I would ask that you open your eyes and see who does most of the caretaking in your community. Churches were originally granted tax exempt status because of all the good work they do in their communities. Most of that work is done without charge to those who benefit. Many churches today exist on barebones budgets and are just barely getting by. If they are taxed less resources will be available to help those in need. Your taxes probably will go up as government programs would have to greatly expand to fill the drop in church services. More likely however, no one would meet those needs and a lot of people will suffer more. Sometimes parasites come in useful!

Next thing you know, they will be pushing evangelical, bible based legislation from the pulpit to destroy all Mosques and Buddhist temples.
After all, their Bible instructs them: "Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property. Genesis 23:24

Also guys, check your private parts because "An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community." Genesis 17:14

"But I'm not sure I want my taxes to subsidize Fairview's political outreach."

Hypocrite. You had no objection when Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Obama's pastor were using their pulpit to promote their political agenda.

The expression is, "Render unto Caesar," not "Render until Caesar."

The problem with this isn't just taxes, it's also that there is a whole body of protection to civil society that goes with it.

Churches that do this either should willingly pay taxes, or be prosecuted for filing false returns. You don't get to violate the law just because you're claiming a hotline to divinity.

Part of the trade off here is that churches get a break in return for keeping their noses out of politics. If it was easy to do, they wouldn't be getting that break.

One of the reasons why the American system of government works is because of the separation of church and state. There is no good reason for the state, or citizens, to tolerate insurrection on the part of religious zelots.

Today it's taxes, tomorrow it's car bombs.

For Coloradodog:

Isaiah 13:11:

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogance of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

Really? You gonna pull out an Ol' GOD's wrath chestnut? Really? Where was GOD's wrath when we slaughtered the Native Americans? Where was GOD's wrath when we forced an entire race of people into second class sub humans? Where was GOD's wrath after the greed of the Great Depression?

Where was GOD's wrath when Hitler was burning Jews alive?(or did you enjoy that?) Where was GOD's wrath when Pol Pot was erasing an entire people from the planet? Where is GOD's wrath to punish those starving children in Africa?(or do they not count?)

And I could go on and on.

Matthew 7:5

You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Matthew 23:5

But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments

I see nothing but arrogance and hypocrisy on this page. The Bible is fine when it supports your world view, while none of you have any real grasp of The Book. A nation of charlatans and false Christians. A gaggle of self righteous, hate spewing, bigots who preach Christian morality while completely ignoring the teachings of Jesus.

As quick to quote a verse from Leviticus as they are to dismiss a verse from Matthew. Rationalizing both decisions with a false sense of piety.

Philippians 2:3-4

"Do Nothing from selfishness or empty conceit"

Proverbs 16:19

It is better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Proverbs 16:5

Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

Luke 14:11

For everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted.

Oh, and everyone of you who attends church commits a sin every time you walk in the door.

4th Commandment:
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth

You have images of Jesus everywhere. No argument you can make could deny this. You have sinned over and over again. ANY likeness of ANY thing that is in Heaven. Pretty sure Jesus is in Heaven.

Quiet yourselves you hypocrites, you brood of vipers. Your arrogance will be accounted for.

Tax-exempt status is NOT a subsidy, it is neutrality, which is the POINT of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Since the power to tax is the power to destroy, the First Amendment is designed to protect churches from government meddling, not to protect the government from church "meddling."

The First Amendment gives churces a privileged position that no other organization gets... the purpose is not to protect govt from church, but to protect church from govt.

I happen to think it is foolish for churches to specifically endorse candidates rather than speak to certain issues (because it diminishes their higher calling), but if they choose to do so, that is their constitutionally protected right and govt cannot punish them with taxes for doing so.

if the churches allow their pastors, reverends, priests and/or rabbis to break this law they should pay the price. its bad enough this administration forgot what the separation of church and state is all about (actually, they forgot what this country and its constitution are all about) but to allow some of these religious nuts to break the law and not punish them would be shear heresy.

Sorry, DRBILL21, but the tax exemption for religious institutions is NOT neutrality, but favoritism. The only reason it is remotely legal is that other similar "charitable" organizations may also claim the same tax exemption. I have been on the boards of several tax exempt organizations, and they have all been "religious" about adhering to the prohibition against political involvement.

These pastors (who simply don't trust their "flocks" to be able to figure out for themselves who best represents their interests) have poked the tiger in the eye. Unless the IRS wishes to put up with an open revolt, it must come down on these churches like the proverbial ton of bricks. I think it is telling that every one of these pastors promotes the conservative viewpoint. Thus, it only seems to be members of conservative congregations who are thought by their pastors to be too ignorant to function on their own in our democracy.

"I am amazed at the reaction to this. Since when is it a crime to peacably protest a law. King Jr. did this to oppose segregation, why can't pastors do it."

Sure, the pastors may do this, and get arrested, go to jail, etc. That's called civil disobedience. You think a law is wrong, you break it and essentially martyr yourself in protest, and hope the public will see your sacrifice and come around to your point of view and change the law.

But these pastors won't do that. No, they think they are absolutely right, by divine guidance, whatever that is.

I hope they don't, and I hope the IRS doesn't make an issue of it. Not this close to the general election! Energizing the religious right is this last thing this Dem wants to see, now. Another way to put that is: Did these pastors do this so close to this election for the very purpose of baiting the IRS to make them martyrs?

I've been involved with local conservation groups that had to decide whether to pursue tax-exempt status. It's a contract entered into with the federal government, agreeing not to engage in political activity, such as endorsing candidates and promoting intiatives & referenda. There are forms to fill out, qualifying requirements...I imagine churches have to do the same...it's somewhat a pro-forma process, but it is a contract, all the same. Seems to me these pastors/churches have broken that contract. They should either be prosecuted, or every tax-exempt group in existence should endorse Mr. Obama for president.

We live in thrilling times!

This is a no-brainer. The churches who publicly endorse political candidates should lose their tax-exempt status. The laws have not been amended, so the IRS should do what is lawful. The churches are not above the law. No debate is necessary here.

As a minister for over 25 years I find the protest this past Sunday poor judgement. I have a right as an individual to express my opinion but I do not have a right to endanger the church where I serve of losing their tax exempt rights. We Evangelicals have gotten drunk on the power of influencing a particular political party. Let's get back to doing what we were called to do and make the world a better place through the love of Christ rather than a political platform.

I have thought about this issue a lot. No one is taking these preachers second amendment rights away. They can basically state their opinion away from church or speak in churches that do not have tax exempt status.

The reason i think this is so important, is that otherwise we will have churches and worse possibly 527 like churches trying to influence the political process.

The churches should fire these preachers.

I am a doctor, i have tremendous influence over patients. It would be wrong for me to influence them on the electoral process, in addition if i did that I would be fired.

Preachers can do what they want, they can say what they think, they can endourse who they wish, but for non profits and churches need to keep politics out or they loose tax exempt status. Personally I think churches and non profits should have the exact same standards with regards to tax status.

This issue requires no debate. If you violate the separation of church and state by endorsing any candidate, you lose your tax exempt status.

Here' why these "pastors" use their bully pulpits to support McCain and his plan to continue Cheney's Christian Oil Crusades.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

There is no first amendment loss here; pastors can say whatever they like wherever they like. They simply must chose between the opportunity to politicize their pulpit and the opportunity for their churches to operate with tax exemption. It is the same for all tax exempt organizations.

The comment about subsidization is exactly right. All organizations that operate in the US are a part of the US infrastructure and benefit from this. All pay taxes, save those that are permitted to be "tax exempt". In this sense, we subsidize ALL tax exempt organization. It is a fair and correct characterization.

The dishonesty here is with the suggestion that anyone's right to freedom of speech has been curtailed. That's simply nonsense and inflammatory.

For those who believe this choice between two powerful opportunities is an unfair burden on church pastors, there's a simple solution: No organization ever gets any tax exemption. That's completely fair (by any definition) and unburdens pastors of that choice.

k__: I think you mean the First Amendment but I wouldn't put it past neochristians to arm their "pastors" in the pulpit (after all, a "Mesican" might show up at their "Christian" church.

KYOPUT: I'm on your side. The Bible quote was for the intolerant Pharisee Spidermean.

Seems like both sides are being hypocritical. Those who believe in secular law should uphold the first amendment which protects religion from government meddling.

Those who believe in Apostolic Law should follow Romans chapter 13 and pay taxes to those who charge taxes. These churches are baiting the IRS. If they feel the law violates their first amendment rights they can challenge it in the courts.

If you make tithes and offerings taxable to the churches that allow Pastors to push politics and repeal the tax exemption for tithers and donators, these Godless Pastors will leave for greener pastures. Their reliance on political solutions to the world's spiritual malaise betrays their phony faith that God is calling the shots and doesn't need their manipulation. Also, the faith community's worldly focus on wealth and prosperity is perverse to a faith that views wealth as a deeper covenant relationship with God - not worldly possessions and CEO lifestyles.

Churches are not like other "so-called" tax-exempt organizations.... the Constitution specifically protects them from government interference, of which taxation is one of the greatest kinds of interference. Churches don't exist "under" govt but in a sense parallel to government. Churches are not to receive funds FROM government or pay funds TO government... the two entities are completely SEPARATE from each other (isn't that what separation of church and state means???). How can they be separate if one entity has the right to impose taxes on the other?

The religion clause of the first amendment doesn't exist to merely protect the PRIVATE right of religion; otherwise, it would not have been necessary because the government would never care about private religion. However, in England, the govt would represee churches who they felt publicly threatened their administration by speaking out against the policies of the king. Therefore, the founders established the first amendment protecting the rights of churches to be PUBLIC actors without fear of government oppression.

I don't see what the big deal is here. What is everyone afraid of? There is the mass delusional paranoia that if churches can endorse politicians that this poses some threat to our democracy.

As I stated earlier, it is foolish of churches to specifically endorse one candidate or party because it compromises their larger mission but there is a legitimage issue here which these pastors are raising.

To usnperu who said:

"Those who believe in Apostolic Law should follow Romans chapter 13 and pay taxes to those who charge taxes. These churches are baiting the IRS. If they feel the law violates their first amendment rights they can challenge it in the courts."

Yes, citizens should pay taxes and they do. But churches should not. Of course these churches are baiting the IRS... that is the whole point. You can't challenge a law in court without having a case to challenge.... they are breaking the law on purpose in order to have the opportunity to challenge teh 1954 law that threatens taxation on any church that engages in politics.

Religion is man.s second-best invention after the wheel. It is also the no. 1 business in America. But as long as there,s man there will be Religion. Go figure how much infrastructure, education and health care we could pay for with the huge tax-exempt amount of money that goes in a big black hole every Sunday. And as long as there is man, this tax-exemption will continue to buy the vote-garnishing power of the Churches. Don,t blame the Pastors, blame yourselves.

United States of Jesuslandia, September 30, 2010

PALIN MANDATES FAITH BASED MALE MUTILATION

RNC Fox News - President Palin today directed all American males to report for inspection today based on Genesis 17:14 that an uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community.

Special and Separate Counselor Dick Cheney, who appointed himself as Palin's political advisor upon the untimely passing of John McCain, praised the move and said airport-type body scanners would be used to protect the identity of true patriotic Americans who were circumcised in accordance with God's commandment. Those identified as needing the operation to be in compliance with God's mandate would immediately be taken to a nationalized United Health Care facility for the procedure. Those refusing would be sent to the Alaskan island of Diamunde where, according to Cheney, they can see Russia from their house as a reminder of the American freedoms they will be deprived of as a result of their disobedience to God.

Meanwhile, Palin's Secretary of American Family Values, Reverend James Dobson, insisted that the inspectors undergo left lobal brain scans "to make sure we don't have Sodomite perverts lustfully looking at our boys' willies."

Those identified as homosexual through the scans will be remanded to Guantanamo, Cuba, where they will first undergo electroshock therapy to cure them. According to Mitt Romney, head of the facility, the Mormon Church has done extensive research with this procedure in the basement of the Student Union at BYU. Those not cured will be remanded to the Cheney Center for Harsh Interrogation for further rendition.

Palin's legal counsel, ADF, said they will defend all Constitutional challenges to the order saying, "We must protect the First Amendment rights of our Government Ministers appointed to enforce God's laws."

Of course, David Waters avoided the issue of a pastor's First Amendment right to instruct his flock on the morality of voting for pro-homo and pro-abortion candidates.

Morality always seems to plague liberals!

Tell me why a church with a $4 million budget shouldn't be taxed when it uses most of that budget to promote itself with billboards and install video screens in the lobby to advance its programs to people who already read about those same programs in the printed bulletins and hear about them in announcements from the pulpit. It's a money making machine not for helping those less fortunate but for recruiting more people into their small club of the elect who will board the boat to heaven on Judgment Day.

I would be insulted if the pastor at my church tried to influence my vote in a sermon. Secondly, a person who blindly follows someone's voting advice is really doing themselves and the rest of us a disservice. I can't imagine a church that did this lasting very long. Therefore, I don't think we really need to go out of our way to punish them with taxes as (hopefully) the invisible hand will take care of it. It would probably cost more to administer the taxes than the actual taxes themselves anyway.

"Churches are not to receive funds FROM government or pay funds TO government..." Are faith-based initiatives and vouchers for private schools included?
"Yes, citizens should pay taxes and they do. But churches should not." Where is this distinction made in Apostolic Law? That was my point. Secular law of course has made the distinction.
"You can't challenge a law in court without having a case to challenge..." In other words the IRS has NEVER enforced the law.

drbill21:

That's just nonsense. A church is an organization, pure and simple. It acquires resources and uses resources just as all organizations do, pure and simple. Your interpretation of the constitution is absurd and extreme.

The utility bills they pay do not cover the full cost of those resources and their infrastructure, just as the utility bills of other organizations (and yours and mine) do not. Their employees, patrons, and service people rely on the same roads that other organizations rely on. The fire department responds just the same for a church as for the grocery store -- as do the police.

They aren't separate in any sense of the word. If you want them to be "separate", then let them pay the full costs of those resources they use (or make them establish their own). To say they are "separate" when it comes to pulling their civil weight while casually accepting our resources is an exceedingly convenient interpretation of what the constitution says.

Parse it out for me precisely, please, because I don't see it.

When any organization uses civil resources and do not contribute to civil funding, the revenue source must compensate. That means my tax dollars ultimately help fund all tax exempt organizations. Taxing us all the same is to treat them as equal, excepting some and not others is to meddle.

And that's fine ... but that comes with a price of its own. If we wish, as a country, to grant certain types of organizations such PRIVILEGES by all means ... but like any privilege, there are stipulations, and that is perfectly fair.

There is no first amendment issue here at all. Zero. What an awful position these pastors are in to have to chose between receiving an amazing gift from the American tax payer and using their position over large audiences to shill for a particular political party.

They shouldn't receive tax exemption under any circumstance; however, granting that they do, they should be obliged to follow the same guidelines all other tax exempt organizations do. Anything else is entirely unreasonable.

First, I will respond to USNPERU:

"Are faith-based initiatives and vouchers for private schools included?"

In the case of vouchers, the money goes to the parents and the parents choose the schools.... the money doesn't go directly to the school... this is not a subsidy to churches, it is a subsidy to children.

"Yes, citizens should pay taxes and they do. But churches should not." Where is this distinction made in Apostolic Law? That was my point. Secular law of course has made the distinction.

In the First Century, there were not "organizational" taxes. As far as I know, there were only direct and "head" taxes. "Churches" did not organize and register with the state, they just met in homes. Paul's comment in Romans 13 about paying taxes clearly refers to individual taxes.

"You can't challenge a law in court without having a case to challenge..." In other words the IRS has NEVER enforced the law.

That is because no one has ever pushed them this far. I guess that is these pastors' point.... they want to bait IRS into enforcing the law so that a court can decide its constitutionality.

Now I will respond to RPW2:

The taxes you refer to are local taxes, not federal income taxes, which is what I understand this tax-exempt status debate is about since it involves the IRS, not local departments of revenue.

I have no problem with churches paying "usage" fees (i.e. direct taxes) with respect to the resources that represent the true costs of any benefits they receive that just happen to be provided through government, rather than a private company. That is not a tax on religion, per se... that is just paying for what you use.

The local community should be allowed to exempt whomever they want from those taxes using whatever criteria they want. Although I would not personally use political speech (i.e. the endorsement of a specific candidate or party) as a criteria to discriminate against one organization seeking tax-exempt status over another, that should be up to discretion of local community based on whether the non-profit offers other social benefits.

However, I don't think THAT is what this is about. It is about federal income taxes, which are not direct "usage" fees. I can't think of any direct benefit that federal government provides churhes that could justify charging them for it.

A "usage" fee is where you get what you pay for.... a tax is where someone else gets what you pay for.

To DrBill21:

There is no doubt that secular law has changed since the first century. However in Romans 13 there is nothing that explicitly limits to individuals the instruction to pay taxes. Paul was speaking to the Christians in Rome collectively. But you bring up a good point. The ones challenging the law do not really reflect the values of the humble Christians who met in private homes.

Another example might help. Jesus claimed to be tax-exempt as the Son of God in Matthew 17:24-27, yet instructed Peter to pay the tax for both of them so as not to stumble anyone.

By endorsing a candidate they are also violating Psalms 146:3 "Do not trust influential people, mortals who cannot help you."

If the churches were careful not to give any appearance of accepting money from the government and to live themselves by bible teachings they would not be hypocritical.

drbill21:

How tedious. Can you really think of none? Suddenly deliberate obtuseness is used as an argument.

Fine. Churches derive benefit from at least the following federal services:

* Our military & national defense
* Financial securities
* Radio and TV broadcast services, which are federally regulated
* The US Postal Service
* And, again: Roads (,ost municipalities in this country derive some federal benefit for their highway infrastructure).

Shall I continue to name services?

How are churches different than any other organization in how they use (or don't use federal services). If this is your argument, then no organization should pay federal taxes.

They are organizations, they use services at all levels of governments. They should be taxed, and if we are to except them then they should abide by PRECISELY THE SAME GUIDELINES as any organization with such exception.

How dramatic: "taxing religion". You imply that if the federal government were to choose to subject these organizations to the same guidelines as any organization that they are somehow being burdened unfairly because they are religious.

It is entirely fair ... it is the very definition of fair. It has nothing to do with religion at all.

But we DON'T treat them fairly, we give them a wonderful gift: Send your church mail at my expense, permit them to apply for (and receive) my dime's worth of federal disaster relief money when needed, hold your church functions with food inspected by the USDA paid for from my wallet. But don't then turn around and tell me your first amendment rights are violated if I wont continue that gift when you abuse your privileges.

It's simply not a first amendment issue at all. No case has yet been presented on this thread that event hints that it is. Pastors can say what they like, where they like. They just can't expect their church to keep our gift to them when they violate the guidelines that come with it.