Pastors in 22 states participate in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” — a protest of the 54-year-old Supreme Court ruling that spelled out the separation of church and state — by telling parishioners what they expect from their presidential candidates.
The outside of the Word of Outreach Christian Church is seen, Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 in Little Rock, Ark. On Sunday, ministers around the country plan to break the law, endorsing presidential candidates during their sermons despite IRS rules prohibiting such endorsements for tax-exempt non-profits. A minister was scheduled to fly into Little Rock Sunday to endorse a presidential candidate at the Word of Outreach Christian Church, but because of flight delays, did not make it.
For more than half a century, members of the clergy in the United States have been prevented by federal law from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. But now, with five weeks to go until Election Day, some clergy are saying the 2008 presidential election is too important to remain publicly impartial, and they are openly breaking the ban.
On Sunday, the Rev. Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California, put his congregation at risk of losing its tax-exempt status by endorsing third-party candidate Alan Keyes for president.
“If I’ve been asked once, I’ve been asked a dozen or more times, why are you doing what you are doing,” said Drake, who was once targeted by the IRS for supporting political candidates from the pulpit.
“Well I’m doing what I’m doing because I’m angry, I’m mad.
Churches shouldn’t be tax-free anyway.
Great! I hope they all preach for one candidate or another, and they all lose their tax-exempt status.
What kind of nonsense is that, anyway?
So why haven’t these churches been put at risk before, when all those black minsters were endorsing Democrats?
Or how about against the UCC for having Barack Obama speaking from the pulpit?
#1-#2
Any reason for the government to steal more money from the people is a winner… ay?
Neither politics from the pulpit nor money changers in the temples, cast them out…
The pulpit should be all about politics or they aren’t worth a bucket of spit.
They should preach and take the consequences.
After taxable deductions, most churches would not pay taxes and if the church was seen as valuable, contributions would only be nominally affected.
Course, the very worst thing in the world is politically active religious nutbags, but who you gonna serve?
I don’t want to hear an endorsement of a candidate from the pulpit. However, I do not believe the government should be dictating what preachers do or do not preach.
My church preaches that we should vote based on what the Bible says and that we need to do our duty as American citizens and vote. We do not endorse a candidate by name or by party.
#3 – Lyin’ Mike
>>So why haven’t these churches been put at risk
>>before, when all those black minsters were
>>endorsing Democrats?
What churches are those, Mikey? You’re not just talking out your ass again, are you?
>>Or how about against the UCC for having Barack
>>Obama speaking from the pulpit?
Barack Obama was a member of that UCC church when he spoke. And unless he was pimping himself for president (which he was NOT, btw), what’s the problem?
In any case f&ck ’em all. There’s no reason at all they should be tax-exempt. I say strip the whole lot of them of tax-exempt status.
The major pain of that action would be felt by the meth-and-man-ass megachurches, and I’m all FOR them feeling pain. You want to operate as a profit center, pay yer f&cking taxes like the rest of us.
The purpose of the constitution is to limit the powers of government.
So the point of the separation of church and state (as interpreted from the constitution) is to limit the control of the church by the state.
But not vice-versa. The church (and any other organization) is free to attempt to exert as much influence on the state as it wishes. There is nothing wrong with a priest running for public office. But, if elected, that priest is not permitted (by the constitution) to impose his religious beliefs on others.
So a priest (or anyone) can stand up in church and tell you who to vote for. And the state is forbidden from doing anything about it.
That said, the tax-exempt status for churches (or any organization) should not be allowed.
Let them preach what ever they want but take away their tax exemption then maybe we can use that money for the bailout.
#8 Mister Mustard
You obviously don’t know what churches do with the money they collect. Most use the money to help those in need that live in their community.
Forcing them to pay tax and you might as well go grab the food away from some homeless guy tonight just so your precious government will not have to do without.
Churches are the biggest scam going…tax free businesses that build huge, elaborate buildings all funded by income from the people who go there, luxury vehicles for supposed humble men who lead them, on and on and on.
These churches should pay taxes like any other business – the sheer number of churches should prove to anyone with a pulse they’re a big scam.
#11 – contempt
>>You obviously don’t know what churches do with
>>the money they collect. Most use the money to
>>help those in need that live in their
>>community.
I believe money used to help those in need would be considered “tax deductible”, just like when I donate money to a homeless shelter.
That’s not the portion of their revenue stream that I’m worried about.
So nix the tax-exempt status, and let them fill out tax returns just like the rest of us.
If this hits the Supreme Court it’s toast. Other non-profit, tax exempt orgs aren’t under this restriction by the IRS.
Thus, unequal protection & 1st Amend violation. The IRS isn’t gong to dive into this in any big way.
From Obama’s speech to the UCC.
“It’s been several months now since I announced I was running for president. In that time, I’ve had the chance to talk with Americans all across this country. And I’ve found that no matter where I am, or who I’m talking to, there’s a common theme that emerges. It’s that folks are hungry for change — they’re hungry for something new. They’re ready to turn the page on the old politics and the old policies — whether it’s the war in Iraq or the health care crisis we’re in, or a school system that’s leaving too many kids behind despite the slogans.”
“I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premiums by up to $2,500 a year.”
The UCC Website advertised it as
: “Obama’s Synod speech will be his ‘first major address on faith and politics as presidential candidate.'”
While we’re at it, how about eliminating the tax deduction for political donations?
#16 “While we’re at it, how about eliminating the tax deduction for political donations?”
They aren’t tax deductible.
#13 Mister Mustard
Before you cry for tax returns for churches you might want to consider the fact that once that happens the separation of church and state goes out the window.
As a result I see bibles back in the public schools… that’s what you call an unintended consequence most liberals tend to forget.
#3
Because when you preach politics to the choir you have to do it in a subtle, ambiguous way in order to pass the message along without incurring in legal troubles. These idiots were not only loud but blatantly spewing nothing but hate but that’s normal Christian behaviour.
#18 – contempt
>>once that happens the separation of church and
>>state goes out the window.
I don’t see it that way. The only mention of “church and state” in the Constitution is in the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It’s not clear how requiring churches to pay income tax would lead to Bibles in the classroom. In fact, the bogus tax-exempt status looks more like preferential treatment of religious organizations, to me.
“unintended consequences” my ass.
#18–contempt===thats what you see huh?
As long as the State does not control what is said from the pulpit ((not the case today)) and does not force people to attend or declare for religion ((mostly complied with although the military may be off-center on this issue)) then Freedom of/from Religion is intact.
Stupid to think there would be a backflow of religion into secular activities ((more than there is anyway?)) if churches were given more freedom.
No==like many things, like regulation in banking, letting the churches run wild and get more heavily into politics could well spell the ruin of many of them. People will put up with a pop-off or bias now and then, but outright partisanship will cause the sheep to move.
People are still people.
# 14 Cow Dung
“. Other non-profit, tax exempt orgs aren’t under this restriction by the IRS.”
YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!
Like hell they aren’t!!! A church is a 501(c)(3) So are charitable, educational, scientific and many other types of organizations.
They are all prohibited from this behavior!
IRS LINK
http://tinyurl.com/33t2of
You talk out your ass so much that your breath stinks.
Why do you lie so much?
#19 – Angel H. Wong
>>These idiots were not only loud but blatantly
>>spewing nothing but hate but that’s normal
>>Christian behaviour.
¡Que te jodas, Angelito! I guess you don’t actually know any Christians, hm? You assume we’re all of the “meth-and-man-ass”/ Jerry Falwell variety.
Tsk.
#22 J “YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!
Like hell they aren’t!!! A church is a 501(c)(3) So are charitable, educational, scientific and many other types of organizations. ”
de jure & de facto J.
Why hasn’t the NAACP lost it tax exempt status J?
Why hasn’t it been fined J?
Equal protection J.
IRS is TOAST if it gets forced in front of the SCotUS.
# 24 Paddy-O
“Why hasn’t the NAACP lost it tax exempt status J?”
Because NAACP has different branches and some are a 501 (c)4 not 501(c)3
Do you bother to look anything up ever?
#25 “Because NAACP has different branches and some are a 501 (c)4 not 501(c)3 ”
Wrong.
#20 Mister Mustard
You are correct in pointing out the limitations placed on congress as far as religion goes. The separation of church and state is just a false interpretation used to remove religion from government.
#21 bobbo
Unfortunately, the government is already controlling what is said from the pulpit. Not allowing the endorsement of a candidate followed by financial treats falls into that category.
#20 Mister Mustard
You are correct in pointing out the limitations placed on congress as far as religion goes. The separation of church and state is just a false interpretation used to remove religion from government.
#21 bobbo
Unfortunately, the government is already controlling what is said from the pulpit. Not allowing the endorsement of a candidate followed by financial threats falls into that category.
# 26 Cow Dung
“Wrong.”
Read the bottom of the page dumbass.
http://www.douglasconaacp.org/
Then of course there is this.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Steve Miller and Jerry Seper
“The NAACP’s board of directors initiated the National Voter Fund to carry out large-scale voter registration programs, an extension of the Democratic “motor voter” plan, which automatically registers voters when they renew their driver’s licenses. The fund in turn created Americans for Equality as a lobbying arm.
The National Voter Fund was organized under Section 501(c)4 of the federal tax code”
“Americans for Equality is called a 527 committee, named for a part of the federal tax code that defines a political organization as one that exists to accept contributions or make expenditures to influence an election at any level.”
PAY, PRAY, OBEY!!!