"The Pulpit Initiative is a legal effort designed to protect the First Amendment rights of pastors in the pulpit. As part of the effort, pastors participating in Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Sunday, September 28, 2008, will deliver to their congregations sermons of their own that apply Scripture to the subject of candidates for government office. The sermons are intended to restore a pastor’s right to speak freely from his pulpit without fearing censorship or punishment by the government. By standing together and speaking with one voice, it is our hope to recapture the rightful place of pastors and churches in American life."
Traditionally, since churches are tax-exempt, it has been a requirement of them to keep their hands out of the public political life by avoiding any such endorsements and in turn, government keeps its hands out of their till by leaving them tax-exempt. Those churches that have pushed that line, have suffered at the hands of the IRS.
In fact, the church that comes to mind is the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, that had its tax-exempt status challenged by the IRS after the last election when they had a sermon critical of President Bush:
"Shortly before the last election, a former rector at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., gave a fiery antipoverty and antiwar sermon. He did not endorse a presidential candidate, but he criticized President Bush's policies in Iraq and at home. Now the Internal Revenue Service has challenged the church's tax-exempt status. It's important to know just how the tax police have chosen this church - and other congregations - to pursue after an election that energized churchgoers of most denominations."
The recent action by 33 ministers across the nation is far more specific in their political endorsements:
"Defying a federal tax law they consider unjust, 33 ministers across the country will take to their pulpits this Sunday and publicly endorse a candidate for president.They plan to then send copies of their sermons to the Internal Revenue Service, hoping to provoke a challenge to a law that bars religious organizations and other nonprofits that accept tax-deductible contributions from involvement in partisan political campaigns.
The protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, was organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of Christian lawyers that fights for conservative religious and social causes. When the fund first announced the protest this year, it said it planned to have 50 ministers taking part. As of Thursday it said it had hundreds of volunteers, but had selected only 33 who were fully aware of the risks and benefits."
However, this is fairly established law. As explained:
"The protest is challenging an amendment to the tax code passed by Congress in 1954 saying that charitable organizations known as 501(c)(3)’s, which accept tax-deductible contributions, cannot intervene in political campaigns. The legislation was intended to prevent nonprofit organizations from funneling money and resources to political candidates."
And as the article points out:
"Three former I.R.S. officials, now lawyers in a Washington firm, recently sent a letter to the I.R.S.’s Office of Professional Responsibility urging that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers be investigated for “inducing churches to engage in conduct designed to violate federal tax law in a direct and blatant matter.”
One of the three who signed the letter, Marcus Owens, the former director of the division of tax-exempt organizations, said, “The ethics issue is a very real one, and the I.R.S. and the Department of Justice cannot be seen as blinking when lawyers or C.P.A.’s counsel people in how to violate the tax law.”
Perhaps the wisest thing these churches should realize, is that they enjoy a special place in our society of protection from taxes and have the obligation to respect that separation by also not trying to dirty themselves into becoming simply a political action committee.
Or as Jesus commented in the Gospels:
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
In other words, honor the separation of church and state
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
My mother was an activist, and a Community leader. Almost forgot my point for mentioning her; she was also a pastor. Oftentimes, people would ask her advice and guidance about for whom they should vote. She would tell them to pray about it.
Politicians learned very quickly to NOT ask her for her support. Instead they would ask her to pray for their campaign. They knew if she said, "YES", that she would support them, and if she said, "NO", well that speaks for itself.
However . . .knowing her the way I did, I would LIKE to believe that she would jump into this situation, and SUSPEND her beliefs and go full force into Election 2008.
I do KNOW that she would have been an Obamaniac -- no doubt.
Oh, but she would have loved him -- his philosophy and his principles.
I'm so regretful that she missed this.
Thanks. I believe that all people of religious background should be motivated to become involved in politics to help their fellow men and women. Indeed we should all be our 'brother's keeper'.
The great strength of the Democratic party is to understand the need to address the problems of every American. To reach out half-way with assistance to get someone standing up for his or herself. To create opportunity. To protect the consumer. To make sure that our food is safe, our investments are secure, our nation is well-defended, our children are educated, and that our people are healthy, and safe in their lives.
But I do not believe that any particular endorsement should be done from the pulpit. That stretches the concept of separation way too far.
Thanks for your comment. Your mother must have been an amazing woman! Wish I could have met her!
This is different from "endorsing" a presidential (or other) candidate ... AND ... This is different from essentially saying "you are not a ____________ (Christian, Jew, Muslim, adherent follower, et al) if you don't vote as I/we tell you to vote. This imposes the "church" over the state in the teachings of many groups. If a "church" instructs a member or attender how to vote as a condition of membership/attendence, the IRS should review its 501(c)3 status. That makes the institution an PAC ... and it should refile under those auspices.
Can you give me a link where they have openly and officially endorsed Democratic candidates? That would be a legitimate gripe for a tax-exempt organization.
Thanks.
"Nearly two years after a controversial decision to investigate the NAACP for criticizing President Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the remarks did not violate the group's tax-exempt status.
In a letter released yesterday by the NAACP, the IRS said the group, the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization, "continued to qualify" as tax-exempt."
That's about all I have found thus far and it doesn't support your contention.
I think they can speak for what they stand for but even is a line to throw off a candidate.
All churches do is make you feel guilty if you endorse someone who does not want to repeal the right of privacy and make abortion illegal.
Actually there should be no law for or against...
The power of the pulpit to pass a judgement on who is best qualified to be president would be biased to the highest degree...and would become a source of corruption as we have seen already in the election...what does a preacher know about running a country?
How many of our politicians are on boards of tax exempt organizations, or are otherwise associated with tax exempt organizations? Yet they still endorse candidates and express political opinions.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am under the impression that colleges and universities are tax exempt. If I make a donation to a public college or university I can write that donation off as a contribution to a tax exempt organization. If I'm right about this, how is it that the University of California and Harvard University are two of the top 5 contributors to Omabas campaign? (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008)
Contrary to popular opinion the First Amendment does NOT provide for the separation of church and state. What it does say is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Most people tend to ignore the last part of this. If a religious belief, say the sanctity of life, also impacts the political arena, silencing the religion is in direct opposition to the Constitution. As is informing people of a candidates public record for or against those beliefs.
But either way the laws should be equally and fairly enforced.
My cousin, a Lutheran minister, agrees with me on this.
(In his private life, however, he enthusiastically supports Obama).
Robert, thank you for bringing up this discussion and doing it in a logical and fact-based way. Indeed, your findings are exactly why any 501(c)3 organization -- churches or not -- must remove themselves from endorsing any political candidate. There are 501(c)4 organization types for that....