• news
  • MONDAY SEPTEMBER 29 2008 2:30 PM

First Shots Fired in Religion vs. IRS Battle

Submitted by BatAttaK

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: constitution, IRS, religion, SCOTUS, taxes



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.

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.



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

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."



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.

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."



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

Image © Austin Cline; Original Poster: Nazi Propaganda

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

Comments
CoyoteMike

CoyoteMike

Iowa City, IA
May 2006

SEP 29, 2008 02:53 PM

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

Fixer

Fixer

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

SEP 29, 2008 02:59 PM

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 Britain's POV, they were criminals who broke the rules. Rules only matter for the losers?

Spiffy

Spiffy

Calgary, AB
March 2007

SEP 29, 2008 04:20 PM

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.



surreal

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?



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

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

SEP 29, 2008 04:28 PM

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?



Edited.

Perhaps more to the point is why they think that a political party has a better grasp of God's will than God. God could intervene, in their theology, and does not; but funnily enough they arrogate themselves the right to do so.

Fixer

Fixer

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

SEP 29, 2008 05:41 PM

I suppose they also may see it as the penalty for breaking these rules is one they are willing to face - so let's do it, let's take away their tax-exempt status like they seem to want!

Fixer

Fixer

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

SEP 29, 2008 05:42 PM

Spiffy said:

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



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.

Spiffy

Spiffy

Calgary, AB
March 2007

SEP 29, 2008 05:53 PM

Fixer said:

Spiffy said:

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



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.



Well, if they Truly Believe in politics, why don't they get involved in politics?

I took a course in the American Civil War, and found out that preachers in the South were--for the most part--proponents for Cesession. At the time, I just thought that priests talking about politics in a sermon was a quaint custom that had been changed since then, like saying Mass in Latin. When I went to church with my parents, the priest NEVER mentioned anything political--all of his sermon's had to do with being a good person and living a good life.

Fast-forward to today, and I have no idea WHY people in America would go to church to get political advice. Here, the two subjects are mutually exclusive. Churches are more focused on moral and social causes.

formerviking

formerviking

Denver, PA
May 2006

SEP 29, 2008 05:53 PM

As I already said about this in another forum , I have no problem with these folks saying whatever they want about who we should vote for . But in return I want them to be held accountable come tax time just like the rest of us . That's all .

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 07:31 PM

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



You mean like Democrats view the first amendment?


[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.



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.

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 07:32 PM

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.

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.



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

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."



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.

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."



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



It is not about religion, it is about freedom of speech and expression.

CoyoteMike

CoyoteMike

Iowa City, IA
May 2006

SEP 29, 2008 07:38 PM

petepolly said:

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



You mean like Democrats view the first amendment?


[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.



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.



So, voter intimidation is covered by free speech?

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 07:41 PM

coyotemike said:

petepolly said:

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



You mean like Democrats view the first amendment?


[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.



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.



So, voter intimidation is covered by free speech?



With a gun or other physical threat, no. With religion, hell yes.

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

SEP 29, 2008 07:41 PM

petepolly said:

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



You mean like Democrats view the first amendment?


[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.



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.



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

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

SEP 29, 2008 07:43 PM

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

DarkSomething

DarkSomething

San Diego, CA
July 2007

SEP 29, 2008 07:45 PM

They have the freedom of speech. They just have to pay taxes just like everybody else tongue

I don't think religion has any place in politics. It's all a ploy to abuse power.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Hail Satan!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

featured interviews