NEWS: First Shots Fired in Religion vs. IRS Battle

The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.

At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain."

Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt."

Fixer said:
they firmly believe the Democrats are closer to the Devil's side than God's side, and they will do what they feel is right and do all they can do to make sure the Dems don't gain any more power.

FixerWe tend to see those who started The Revolutionary War as heroes. but to Britain's POV, they were criminals who broke the rules. Rules only matter for the losers?

Fixer said:
they firmly believe the Democrats are closer to the Devil's side than God's side, and they will do what they feel is right and do all they can do to make sure the Dems don't gain any more power.

We tend to see those who started The Revolutionary War as heroes. but to George III's POV, they were criminals who broke the law. Rules only matter for the losers?

Spiffy said:

So...are you saying that Washington, Franklin, Adams, et al. shouldn't have rebelled? Because it was against the rules?

Fixer said:

no, not at all, but just recognise that people who Truly Believe in something are often willing to break rules in support of their belief.

coyotemike said:
Does it seem to anyone else that conservatives groups view rules as "things for other people"?

[Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BatAttaK said:
Yesterday the first volleys were fired by the religious Right against the IRS code that prohibits churches from endorsing candidates from pulpit.

Source

In 1954 Congress amended the tax code to prohibit certain non-profit groups from intervening in a political campaign involving candidates. The provision allows the IRS to strip the offending church of their tax-exempt status.

The Associated Press reported that "...33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund." This effort was premeditated and well thought out.

So what exactly was said from the pulpits today? Did it really violate federal law? Most definitely.

It is sad to see that the Republicans have now resorted organized violations of Federal law in order to win this election. Just when you thought the playing field could not get any more dirty the Right pulls this.

So do these pastors have a chance of fulfilling their goals? Not likely with the current lineup of SCOTUS Justices. Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University, said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition. However if McCAin does pull off his perceived Hail Mary play and wins in November the current line-up on the Supreme Court is sure to change.

Not all religious institutions are pleased with the battle lines being drawn. If there is a wholesale revocation of the IRS tax code as it relates to churches many institutions will have to give up programs and services that benefit the community.

My only hope is that these churches will not succeed and that the organizers will be brought up on Federal conspiracy charges.

petepolly said:

You mean like Democrats view the first amendment?

Seriously what part of "shall make no law" is unclear to you?

A law which penalizes a preacher from making a sermon endorsing or denouncing a specific candidate is a violation of the 1st amendment in that it:

1 abridges the free exercise of religion

2 abridges free speech

3 abridges freedom of the press if the preacher chooses to publish the sermon

4 abridges the right of the congregation to hear what their preacher wants to say and so abridges right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Their is absolutely no question at all that the SCOTUS ruling on this matter is utter horseshit and the supreme court justices who voted for it need to be in stocks for little children to throw rotten fruit at for the rest of their lives.

coyotemike said:

So, voter intimidation is covered by free speech?

petepolly said:

You mean like Democrats view the first amendment?

Seriously what part of "shall make no law" is unclear to you?

A law which penalizes a preacher from making a sermon endorsing or denouncing a specific candidate is a violation of the 1st amendment in that it:

1 abridges the free exercise of religion

2 abridges free speech

3 abridges freedom of the press if the preacher chooses to publish the sermon

4 abridges the right of the congregation to hear what their preacher wants to say and so abridges right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Their is absolutely no question at all that the SCOTUS ruling on this matter is utter horseshit and the supreme court justices who voted for it need to be in stocks for little children to throw rotten fruit at for the rest of their lives.

skeptik said:

Interestingly enough, the decision does none of those things.

If the preacher or the church wants to do these things, they are absolutely free to do so. They just get to pay taxes again just like everyone else in the country.

The tax code already created an exemption from taxes for religious institutions. You know, as in "Congress made a law regarding ..."

Seriously what part of "shall make no law" is unclear to you?

skeptik said:
Losing a privilege that no one else posesses is not an infringement of your rights.

petepolly said:

Lots of people will still possess it, religious denominations that do not speak for or against a candidate for office. So it is a law punishing people for free speech.

petepolly said:

SHALL MAKE NO LAW !!

The law that changes the tax status is a punishment for political speech that creates a fine for free speech.

That is a LAW that punishes free speech and so is covered by the first amendment .

Shiny_metal_ass said:
Go yell fire in a crowded theater.
1st Amendment!!!1!1!

petepolly said:

People yell fire in crowded theaters all the fucking time, and it is legal if it is part of the play.

The right is that of the theater owner. If you start yelling anything that disrupts a performance, you violate the rights of the theater owner and that of all the other patrons of the theater.

That is the correct interpretation.

petepolly said:

Lots of people will still possess it, religious denominations that do not speak for or against a candidate for office. So it is a law punishing people for free speech.