News > Politics > First Shots Fired in Religion vs. IRS Battle

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

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 11

Comments

petepolly

Antarctica

August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 08:11 PM

So, fine.

Repeal the law that granted them a tax exemption in the first place.

Fine by me.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

SEP 29, 2008 08:19 PM

You ever hear of a thing called inciting to riot? Free speech is not an absolute. If your speech causes harm, or can reasonably be expected to cause harm, it's no longer protected. That's just one example of the limits of free speech.

DarkSomething

San Diego, CA

July 2007

SEP 29, 2008 08:20 PM

petepolly said:

So, fine.

Repeal the law that granted them a tax exemption in the first place.

Fine by me.

So in the end this argument is over nothing.

ckdexterhaven

USA

December 2005

SEP 29, 2008 08:21 PM

I'm shocked to see Shiny_metal_ass posting in this thread. Shocked!

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA

July 2002

SEP 29, 2008 08:25 PM

petepolly said:

Shiny_metal_ass said:

petepolly said:

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

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

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.

OK, now I know you're just fucking with us.

Right? I mean you can't be serious. That was the weakest, lamest argument I think I have ever heard on any subject. Congrats.

Deadly serious.

You have no right to go onto someone else's property under false pretenses that you want to watch the show he is putting on and selling tickets to, and then disrupt the show.

Freedom of speech on public property, or on your own property or as long as the owner is ok with it. Not on someone else's who does not like or want it.

Dude, this is hilarious. Now tell us what you think of Marbury v. Madison.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

SEP 29, 2008 08:34 PM

ckdexterhaven said:
I'm shocked to see Shiny_metal_ass posting in this thread. Shocked!

My comments have been strictly limited to interpretation of the 1str Amendment, with no reference to religion, if you read my posts.

SuperCrunch

Birmingham, AL

January 2007

SEP 29, 2008 08:43 PM

Don't they know that Jesus was black.

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA

November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 08:48 PM

adjunct said:

petepolly said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Dude, this is hilarious. Now tell us what you think of Marbury v. Madison.

Yeah, really. petepolly, I suggest you get some kind of understanding of how free speech has actually been regulated in the US - instead of some fantasy. A good place to start is "Free Speech On Trial" (Parker), Univ. of Alabama Press, covering the major landmark Supreme Court decisions and their implications in plain language.

Until then, I look forward to your posts in this matter, as I could use a laugh after watching the market plummet today.