Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning

[AngCath]

[/url]
I think this is an important article. Please read and post your thoughts in A LOVING MANNER.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,592419,full.story

[url="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07_ipk6mukn,1,4154499.photo?coll=la-home-headlines"]http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2005-11/20362623.jpg (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07_ipk6mukn,1,4154499.photo?coll=la-home-headlines)

[karen freeinchristman]

I think it is really kind of frightening. I feel it is right for the church to be involved in political issues that it feels are important, and not be afraid to do so. But the way the governments hand has come down so quickly and fiercely in this instance is not good.

[Aymn27]

This is pretty much standard procedure...when a church opposed Clinton for his stance on abortion - they lost theirs - I think they had bought a billboard or somehow made it public. IMHO, churches should NOT be non-profit and should take on the govt when it is wrong or does something against Christian principles.....my problem is that generally nothing is said of Democrats going into black churches and making campaign speeches with the pastors endorsing them et al and they don't get whacked just like this church did...I don't have a problem with the policy, it just needs to be applied equally and fairly..

Aaron

[karen freeinchristman]

IMHO, churches should NOT be non-profit and should take on the govt when it is wrong or does something against Christian principles
I agree!

[gitlance]

We need more churches to stand up for what's right...

[IowaLutheran]

IMHO, churches should NOT be non-profit and should take on the govt when it is wrong or does something against Christian principles.

I understand your point, but the infrastructure of nearly every denomination in the US would be radically altered, if not collapsed, if giving to churches and church-related charities was no longer tax deductible. Not only would giving be drastically reduced, but all of a sudden, the expenses of running a congregation would skyrocket because they would have to pay property taxes, and pay income tax on every fundraiser if nonprofit status was rescinded.

Maybe the solution would be to allow an exception for churches, allowing them more freedom to speak out than other nonprofits.

[karen freeinchristman]

Maybe the solution would be to allow an exception for churches, allowing them more freedom to speak out than other nonprofits.
Agreed! But how likely is this?

[IowaLutheran]

Agreed! But how likely is this?

Good question - probably not likely. An argument against such an exception would be that churches would become a refuge for those wanting to blatantly discuss politics and keep their nonprofit status.

I just thought of another thing that would happen if nonprofit status were rescinded - our friends in the Catholic church would no longer be able to rely on bingo income as in many states, the ability to conduct gaming operations is limited to nonprofits!

[Forest]

It looks like the IRS overreacted.

[Aymn27]

I understand your point, but the infrastructure of nearly every denomination in the US would be radically altered, if not collapsed, if giving to churches and church-related charities was no longer tax deductible. Not only would giving be drastically reduced, but all of a sudden, the expenses of running a congregation would skyrocket because they would have to pay property taxes, and pay income tax on every fundraiser if nonprofit status was rescinded.

Maybe the solution would be to allow an exception for churches, allowing them more freedom to speak out than other nonprofits.
Excellent point - not something I had considered. Also, doing so would create a horrible situation like campaign finance did with moveon.org and the other 527s (I think that's right) - but surely there must be a way to allow churches to influence the cultural debates without destroying them financially...I'm not sure how though.

[svdbygrace]

All I have to say is... Pray for Peace!

[Fish and Bread]

I find it interesting that the second any priest or clergyperson speaks out against Bush's holy crusade, they're investigated by the IRS. Where is the IRS investigation from from the Bush campaign actually went around asking for congregations' membership roles in order to do mass mailings? Where was the IRS investigation when a priest on EWTN came out right before the election and said those who unrepentantly voted for pro-choice candidates without obtaining sacramental confession were, and I quote, "going straight to hell" during a homily from one of their daily masses? How about the rural Baptist church in the Carolinas that actually excommunicated five members because they didn't vote for Bush? I'd like to see a little bit of consistancy here, please.

John

[DarthDigger]

All I have to say is... Pray for Peace!


sounds like a full-proof plan to me! :thumbsup: ;) :D

[marciebaby]

It's actually pretty interesting. For tax purposes, all non-profit organizations have to apply for tax exempt status under one of several options. Most church are 501c3, which is primarily charity. The more outspoken, politically active organizations are welcome to apply for tax exempt status under 501c4. The deal is, that whichever status you are claiming exemption under-you'd better behave as such, or the IRS can get you.

Churches know this when they apply-or at least they should! I was working on getting tax exempt status for a non-profit, and it was all spelled out in black and white to me. If churches want to be more politically active, then they should apply under the correct option. Also, if you've had c3 status revoked, it can be very difficult for the IRS to approve re-instating your status, or even approving c4 status, because you've proven yourself to be "rebellious."

[DarthDigger]

is that me or someone else?

[gitlance]

Our gov't is hypocritical! We have a president that LOVES to talk all about God and how God is "on his side" in this war and blah blah blah. BUT, the moment somebody stands up and speaks out against him, the gov't goes crazy.

How is it that he can speak in a church to promote his agenda, but churches can't speak about him??

[karen freeinchristman]

It's actually pretty interesting. For tax purposes, all non-profit organizations have to apply for tax exempt status under one of several options. Most church are 501c3, which is primarily charity. The more outspoken, politically active organizations are welcome to apply for tax exempt status under 501c4. The deal is, that whichever status you are claiming exemption under-you'd better behave as such, or the IRS can get you.

Churches know this when they apply-or at least they should! I was working on getting tax exempt status for a non-profit, and it was all spelled out in black and white to me. If churches want to be more politically active, then they should apply under the correct option. Also, if you've had c3 status revoked, it can be very difficult for the IRS to approve re-instating your status, or even approving c4 status, because you've proven yourself to be "rebellious."
That was really informative, Marciebaby! You seem to know so much about it! :)

[Simon_Templar]

well in some ways this is a little funny.. because its a kind of shoe is on the other foot now situation.
Conservative churches have been threatened with law suits and loosing tax exempt status on a number of occasions over the last 15 years or so. There has even been one case (in new york if memory serves) were a church service was interrupted by police breaking in and arresting the minister, all over the issues that were being preached on, abortion being one of the chief trouble points.
Not to mention the routine harassment that many conservative churches get in the form of mailings threatening legal action by the ALCU etc, if those churches come too close to endorsing a political candidate around election time.
All of this, of course, receives no media attention.

The first time it happens to a "liberal" its a media issue and there is outcry. The funny part is the comments by the liberal people in question "we feel confused... we feel targeted"... :) Welcome to the club. Perhaps you should have cared when it was happening to other people.. then it might not have been able to happen to you.


The issue is, of course, a serious one despite the initial urge to find some kind of poetic irony in it. The government using money as a means of interfering in religion is a serious problem, and it was a serious problem long before this incident.
I think that tax exemption for churches is a good idea if the government is good. The problem is that our government has alot of elements in it that are not good and are getting progressively worse. This is also why I was always opposed to President Bush's "faith based initiatives" for giving federal money to religious charities... thats all well and good and even noble if the government is good.. but with the wrong people in government, all it does is open up those organizations to control by the federal government.
Most of you who are familiar with me realize that I am what would generaly be labeled as a "conservative" but there is a serious problem of short sightedness and group think among the "neo-cons" today. They are willing to support almost anything if it is proposed by the right people. Alot of the homeland security changes being prime examples. Many of the thins done under that, had they been done by liberals would have been bitterly opposed by virtually all conservatives.

The secularist movement in our country has for years been trying to make it illegal for religion to impact government (usualy through imposing government controls upon religious activities) when the 1st ammendment was written for exactly the opposite purpose, to prevent government from making laws that restrict the pactice of religion (which includes the ability of religion to impact both society and politics).

[Aymn27]

well in some ways this is a little funny.. because its a kind of shoe is on the other foot now situation.
Conservative churches have been threatened with law suits and loosing tax exempt status on a number of occasions over the last 15 years or so. There has even been one case (in new york if memory serves) were a church service was interrupted by police breaking in and arresting the minister, all over the issues that were being preached on, abortion being one of the chief trouble points.
Not to mention the routine harassment that many conservative churches get in the form of mailings threatening legal action by the ALCU etc, if those churches come too close to endorsing a political candidate around election time.
All of this, of course, receives no media attention.

The first time it happens to a "liberal" its a media issue and there is outcry. The funny part is the comments by the liberal people in question "we feel confused... we feel targeted"... :) Welcome to the club. Perhaps you should have cared when it was happening to other people.. then it might not have been able to happen to you.


The issue is, of course, a serious one despite the initial urge to find some kind of poetic irony in it. The government using money as a means of interfering in religion is a serious problem, and it was a serious problem long before this incident.
I think that tax exemption for churches is a good idea if the government is good. The problem is that our government has alot of elements in it that are not good and are getting progressively worse. This is also why I was always opposed to President Bush's "faith based initiatives" for giving federal money to religious charities... thats all well and good and even noble if the government is good.. but with the wrong people in government, all it does is open up those organizations to control by the federal government.
Most of you who are familiar with me realize that I am what would generaly be labeled as a "conservative" but there is a serious problem of short sightedness and group think among the "neo-cons" today. They are willing to support almost anything if it is proposed by the right people. Alot of the homeland security changes being prime examples. Many of the thins done under that, had they been done by liberals would have been bitterly opposed by virtually all conservatives.

The secularist movement in our country has for years been trying to make it illegal for religion to impact government (usualy through imposing government controls upon religious activities) when the 1st ammendment was written for exactly the opposite purpose, to prevent government from making laws that restrict the pactice of religion (which includes the ability of religion to impact both society and politics).
Agreed Simon!! it was a church in New York and it was about abortion and it was under Clinton. And like I stated earlier - Demos are infamous for going into black (generally Baptist) churches on the campaign trail - but nothing is ever said or done about it - here in Louisiana, our governor was endorsed by the New Orleans Ministerial Alliance (a black interfaith group) on the steps of the largest black church in New Orleans - nothing was said or done...Al Gore et al are always stumping in churches...but the shoe goes on the other foot and we hear "hypocricy"...I really don't care either way..whether it is conservative or liberals voicing their opinions in church - if its the RCC keeping communion from Kerry or the ECUSA staging a pro-gay rights march, I just think the laws need to be applied equally to both

[CSMR]

Please read and post your thoughts in A LOVING MANNER.
I am not sure that I am able to do this; I can at least be relatively peaceful.

This is a question of US law and who is obliged to pay tax. If the law says the church may speak about political issues if it pays tax, then if it speaks about political issues, it should pay tax, as a matter of subjection to the authorities.

I personally consider it most likely that the IRS tries to take as much tax as it legally can. If it exempts some people unfairly for political reasons then wouldn't that be illegal? In any case we are still to be in submission and not anxious.

[higgs2]

I find it interesting that the second any priest or clergyperson speaks out against Bush's holy crusade, they're investigated by the IRS. Where is the IRS investigation from from the Bush campaign actually went around asking for congregations' membership roles in order to do mass mailings? Where was the IRS investigation when a priest on EWTN came out right before the election and said those who unrepentantly voted for pro-choice candidates without obtaining sacramental confession were, and I quote, "going straight to hell" during a homily from one of their daily masses? How about the rural Baptist church in the Carolinas that actually excommunicated five members because they didn't vote for Bush? I'd like to see a little bit of consistancy here, please.

John

These are great questions that moderates and progressive have been asking for a long time, but don't expect much of an answer.

[Aymn27]

These are great questions that moderates and progressive have been asking for a long time, but don't expect much of an answer.
there is no such thing as a moderate - moderates are people who can't make up their minds and are generally "progressives" (read socialist Democrats) who really don't care much about controling government...

I often think that if the leftist Demos consider Bush a "radical right winger" - to them I must be a Nazi, LOL...

and on goes another conspiracy...

(what amazes me the most is how people think these beaurecracies follow the political ideoligies of the President - I'm sure Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are conservative Republicans, rofl..)

[Tetzel]

This is a question of US law and who is obliged to pay tax. If the law says the church may speak about political issues if it pays tax, then if it speaks about political issues, it should pay tax, as a matter of subjection to the authorities.


The problem is that you cannot eliminate issues that concern morality from the pulpit merely because they are also being discussed in the political arena. Is abortion a political issue or a moral issue? Is the death and destruction brought by war a political or a moral issue?

[Simon_Templar]

Aymn,

I agree. It is probably a benefit for our nation, from a righteousness stand point and for reaping the benefits of doing things rightly, to give tax exemptions... BUT if they can't do it without sticking their nose in along with it, then churches should simply cut the cord and do without. Better to lose the monitary benefit and have the freedom to teach the truth, and the whole truth.

However, we're fast approaching the point, through the application of "hate speech" laws and the like, at which tax exemption will cease to be the big issue. The government will be able to control the content of sermons simply through legislated political correctness. This is already the case in canada.

[higgs2]

there is no such thing as a moderate - moderates are people who can't make up their minds and are generally "progressives" (read socialist Democrats) who really don't care much about controling government...

I often think that if the leftist Demos consider Bush a "radical right winger" - to them I must be a Nazi, LOL...

and on goes another conspiracy...

(what amazes me the most is how people think these beaurecracies follow the political ideoligies of the President - I'm sure Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are conservative Republicans, rofl..)

fiddle dee dee.

I certainly can't argue with your post. I'm off to watch "commander in chief" LOL! (Another socialist leftie conspiracy) :D

Edited to add: issue nicely sidestepped, by the way :D :D

[CSMR]

The problem is that you cannot eliminate issues that concern morality from the pulpit merely because they are also being discussed in the political arena. Is abortion a political issue or a moral issue? Is the death and destruction brought by war a political or a moral issue?
I do not know what charitable law is and how or whether it makes this distinction. Perhaps churches should speak out on issues that make them taxable, and also pay tax. I fail to see what the problem is for the church, except that it may have less money to carry out its tasks.

[karen freeinchristman]

we're fast approaching the point, through the application of "hate speech" laws and the like, at which tax exemption will cease to be the big issue. The government will be able to control the content of sermons simply through legislated political correctness. This is already the case in canada.

:sigh:

Yes. Will the day come when we are not allowed to say "Jesus is the way" because it is not politically correct?

[Aymn27]

fiddle dee dee.

I certainly can't argue with your post. I'm off to watch "commander in chief" LOL! (Another socialist leftie conspiracy) :D

Edited to add: issue nicely sidestepped, by the way :D :D
higgs,
I really have no problem with Democrats (aka socialists) as long as they, like you, admit their true identity...I may disagree on..well, let's see..just about everything (hehe)....but at least you are being honest about what you view as the best way..much different than the Hillary-types who are extreme left-wingers and try to act "centrist" to get elected..that's what drives me nuts...

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Viewed from Europe, the Democrats are centrist.

We always used to joke that in the US you could vote right wing tory (Dem) or very right wing tory (Rep).

Then along came Tony Blair and we got the same choice here :(

[AngCath]

Viewed from Europe, the Democrats are centrist.

We always used to joke that in the US you could vote right wing tory (Dem) or very right wing tory (Rep).


must be why i'm unable to identify with either party :D
----

Thank you all for your responses to this article

[svdbygrace]

:sigh:

Yes. Will the day come when we are not allowed to say "Jesus is the way" because it is not politically correct?

Yes. This will be the case. :sigh: :( :cry:

[higgs2]

higgs,
I really have no problem with Democrats (aka socialists) as long as they, like you, admit their true identity...I may disagree on..well, let's see..just about everything (hehe)....but at least you are being honest about what you view as the best way..much different than the Hillary-types who are extreme left-wingers and try to act "centrist" to get elected..that's what drives me nuts...
Put your left foot in
Take your left foot out
Sidestep the issue and shake it all about...

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about? :D

You are so funny, I have not "admitted" anything, you are making assumptions about me based on you own biases.

[higgs2]

:sigh:

Yes. Will the day come when we are not allowed to say "Jesus is the way" because it is not politically correct?
No, this will not happen, and we're not even close.

Of course, we can't legislate Jesus as "the way". Thanks be to God.

[DarthDigger]

?? i dont know.........

[Aymn27]

You are so funny, I have not "admitted" anything, you are making assumptions about me based on you own biases.Are you kidding?? You said you watch the Left Wing..er, um..I mean..West Wing - and we all know about you people!! rofl..

[DarthDigger]

hehehehehe

[higgs2]

Are you kidding?? You said you watch the Left Wing..er, um..I mean..West Wing - and we all know about you people!! rofl..
Focus, concentrate... Read my post again, I never said that.

Scary. :eek:

[gitlance]

Are you kidding?? You said you watch the Left Wing..er, um..I mean..West Wing - and we all know about you people!! rofl..

HEY NOW.... I watch it too... hehehehe. ;)

[higgs2]

?? i dont know.........

:) What don't you know? :)

[higgs2]

HEY NOW.... I watch it too... hehehehe. ;)

Not that it would make me a "leftie wing socialist" if I did watch it, but I don't. I have too many shows as it is!

[Aymn27]

Focus, concentrate... Read my post again, I never said that.

Scary. :eek:
Wait..you said you were off to watch "commander in cheif" - is that not the West Wing?? or crap..now I'm confused..I don't watch much TV so....

should I open mouth in preparation of inserting foot?? hehe..

[Simon_Templar]

No, this will not happen, and we're not even close.

Of course, we can't legislate Jesus as "the way". Thanks be to God.

Right... you'll always be able to say that Jesus is the way... as long as you don't say he's the only way. You see despite the "secularist" trend going on right now, religion is not really what the leftist establishment is against... in fact their all for it. They are against religions that are exclusive and claim to hold the truth, or be authoritative. Thus you can believe that Jesus is the way all you want and they will applaud.. as long as you also believe that buddha is the way, and mohammed is the way and hinduism is the way... Jesus is just the way that you happen to feel more comfortable with.

The controls of political correctness will not be used to eliminate religion, they will be used to attempt to elminate exclusive religions which claim truth and authority and to replace them with a new age amalgam of faiths that allow everyone to have their own truth and doesn't interfere with the social engineering plans of the governments.

[higgs2]

Wait..you said you were off to watch "commander in cheif" - is that not the West Wing?? or crap..now I'm confused..I don't watch much TV so....

should I open mouth in preparation of inserting foot?? hehe..
:thumbsup: Yes, different show :) I was being sarcasticabout the socialist plot.

[higgs2]

Right... you'll always be able to say that Jesus is the way... as long as you don't say he's the only way. You see despite the "secularist" trend going on right now, religion is not really what the leftist establishment is against... in fact their all for it. They are against religions that are exclusive and claim to hold the truth, or be authoritative. Thus you can believe that Jesus is the way all you want and they will applaud.. as long as you also believe that buddha is the way, and mohammed is the way and hinduism is the way... Jesus is just the way that you happen to feel more comfortable with.

The controls of political correctness will not be used to eliminate religion, they will be used to attempt to elminate exclusive religions which claim truth and authority and to replace them with a new age amalgam of faiths that allow everyone to have their own truth and doesn't interfere with the social engineering plans of the governments.

Who is going to stop you from saying Jesus is the only way? This is such a paranoid point of view.

Social engineering plans of the government? Hmmmmm. Well if it's a bunch of "lefties" doing the planning they are not making a very big impact if you ask me.

[higgs2]

Right... you'll always be able to say that Jesus is the way... as long as you don't say he's the only way. You see despite the "secularist" trend going on right now, religion is not really what the leftist establishment is against... in fact their all for it. They are against religions that are exclusive and claim to hold the truth, or be authoritative. Thus you can believe that Jesus is the way all you want and they will applaud.. as long as you also believe that buddha is the way, and mohammed is the way and hinduism is the way... Jesus is just the way that you happen to feel more comfortable with.

The controls of political correctness will not be used to eliminate religion, they will be used to attempt to elminate exclusive religions which claim truth and authority and to replace them with a new age amalgam of faiths that allow everyone to have their own truth and doesn't interfere with the social engineering plans of the governments.

By the way, if there is a "leftist establishment" why do they have such a hard time getting anyone elected? :D :D

I think that our founding parents would not find forbidding establishment of religion in our government to be a problem.

[Simon_Templar]

By the way, if there is a "leftist establishment" why do they have such a hard time getting anyone elected? :D :D

I think that our founding parents would not find forbidding establishment of religion in our government to be a problem.

When I say leftist establishment I do so for lack of a better term. What I mean by that is a grouping of several organizations which are united by common belief and purpose (belief of course being predominantly "leftist").
Included in this group are most of the major media outlets, most of the democratic party, most of the major universities (indeed much of the education system in general). Despite the trouble democrats have had in the last few elections a good portion of the government is still leftist in its orientation simply because of the fact that the underlying beauracracies don't change that much from administration to administration.
The state department is a good example of this. The secretary of state changes with each administration and he is the head of the state department... but the people who actually do the work of the state department don't change much from administration to administration.. the people who are in the field, the people who write policy statements and recomendations, the people who do research etc etc etc. The state department has traditionaly drawn many of its recruits from yale university. (going back to the revolutionary war when the US intelligence community consisted of a couple of guys from yale who spied for the US.. the most famous being Nathan Hale).
Yale long ago became dominated by unitarian thought (along with public education in general thanks to Horace Mann) and the unitarian progressivism of the 19th century lead inescapably into leftism in the 20th century. Thus since the early 20th century there has been strong leftist leaning philosophy dominating Yale (the same thing is true of harvard and gradually it has become true of pretty much all the major universities).
Yale is dominated by leftist philosophy... yale produces a high percentage of the people who eventually work in the state department (despite who the president is) thus the state department has had a distinct left lean for the last 50 years.
Thats just one example of one government department, but the same general principle is true all around (especially in education).

This isn't the result of some grand conspiracy (though I do enjoy a good conspiracy theory).. its simply the result of natural flow of ideas. Progressivism always becomes leftist given time to follow its course. At best you could call it a conspiracy of effect (rather than intent)... the fact that the state department keeps recruiting from the same schools, the same general pool of candidates means that they will tend to get candidates educated in similar philosophical mind sets.

The fact that the public education system was founded on unitarian progressive ideas which inevitably lead to leftist philosophy and then that the next major influence on the education system was, you guessed it, a communist, secularist (john dewey) naturally gives the result that the public education system is skewed left. This doesn't guarentee that all students will end up skewed left because kids are rebelious.. and because the most important influence in kid's life and education is still their parents.. but over time it does mean that leftist philosophy will become gradually bit by bit inculcated into the mind of the society.

The reason that europe is so much further left than the US is simply because they are on the same path that we are... they just have a bit of a head start. we're closing the gap though.


The idea people have today of "establishing religion in government" is rediculous. The point of the restrictions of the constitution etc is to prevent government from influencing religion, not the other way around. Anglicans should realize this better than most because the anglican tradition in england is precisely the situation that gave rise to these ideas in the minds of the founders. The church in england never significantly impacted the political arena. It was ALWAYS the other way around.. the church was used by the government to enforce their own views on the people.
Furthermore the standard applied as "establishment of religion" is so unbelievably ludacris as to defy reason.

you think its laughable and paranoid to think that someday you might not be able to say that Jesus in the only way... but right now, if a kid says this privately in school to a friend and he is over heard, in many schools he would face censure, in some cases he could even be suspended or expelled. All under the guise of not establishing religion.. but seriously, what person with a brain could possibly construe a private conversation, or even a public speech given by a student as "the authoritative position of government" simply because the speech is spoken on school property?
Just in the last month, in my city the local state college earned some newsprint by forbidding Resident Assistants in the dorms from holding private bible studies, this same policy is in effect already through out a number of the other state univeristy campuses.

Religious freedom and freedo of speech are the two highest and most important freedoms guarenteed under the constitution, and yet today in our country you sacrifice both of them if you go to school... or work at the wrong job. But I'm sure its just paranoia to think that this could continue to spread or become any more pervasive than it already is.

[applepowerpc]

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

This warning from the IRS is not just an Anglican/Episcopalian issue. This is an attack on all of Christianity. I hope we can get this news bumped up to a broader forum.

[Father Rick]

Ok guys... let me explain a VERY important legal principle here with ANY religious organization in the US...

It is perfectly legal for a church with a 501C3 to take a stand and be outspoken on ISSUES...

It is NOT legal for a church with a 501C3 to talk about specific CANDIDATES...

Therefore, a pastor can stand in the pulpit-- or go outside in the parking lot with a bullhorn-- and announce "we believe war is wrong and we shouldn't be at war" all day long... but they can NOT say "Bush is wrong for taking us to war".The same is true with ANY other theological/moral/ethical position.

Examples:

Acceptable: "We believe life begins at conception so don't vote for any candidate who supports abortion".
Unacceptable: "Candidate _________ supports abortion so don't vote for him/her."

Acceptable: "We believe marriage should be between a man and a woman so don't vote for anyone who doesn't support the traditional family."
Unacceptable: "Candidate______________ is wrong for supporting domestic partnerships."



It's not an attempt to censor churches at all-- rather just provision that churches stick to doing what churches are suppose to do-- teach theology/ethics/morality and help their parishioners make educated decisions regarding their life choices, rather than churches become political agents.


(BTW, please let's not start a debate on the issues I used for examples-- those issues are not supposed to be discussed/debated in this forum, but I couldn't think of any other examples)

[higgs2]

Ok guys... let me explain a VERY important legal principle here with ANY religious organization in the US...

It is perfectly legal for a church with a 501C3 to take a stand and be outspoken on ISSUES...

It is NOT legal for a church with a 501C3 to talk about specific CANDIDATES...

Therefore, a pastor can stand in the pulpit-- or go outside in the parking lot with a bullhorn-- and announce "we believe war is wrong and we shouldn't be at war" all day long... but they can NOT say "Bush is wrong for taking us to war".The same is true with ANY other theological/moral/ethical position.

Examples:

Acceptable: "We believe life begins at conception so don't vote for any candidate who supports abortion".
Unacceptable: "Candidate _________ supports abortion so don't vote for him/her."

Acceptable: "We believe marriage should be between a man and a woman so don't vote for anyone who doesn't support the traditional family."
Unacceptable: "Candidate______________ is wrong for supporting domestic partnerships."



It's not an attempt to censor churches at all-- rather just provision that churches stick to doing what churches are suppose to do-- teach theology/ethics/morality and help their parishioners make educated decisions regarding their life choices, rather than churches become political agents.


(BTW, please let's not start a debate on the issues I used for examples-- those issues are not supposed to be discussed/debated in this forum, but I couldn't think of any other examples)

Thank you :)

(BTW, I can think of *lots* of other examples ;) )