Y'all said this wouldn't happen

Sooooooooo . . . you don't think there should be policies for investigation?

For churches? For other non-profit entities?

You're in favor of the kind of special status for speech from the pulpit that I outlined above? I know, you said that you don't LIKE it, but do you believe it should be permissible to the IRS?
 
Julio3000 said:
Just for fun here, I'm going to give you a real-life example of something I see nearly every day.

There is a church near my home that uses a prominently displayed marquee to display anti-Obama messages. Really vile stuff, often. Lindsay Graham is another favorite target of theirs. Anyway, this might tend violate the IRS rules about advocacy for/against a candidate, if it were an election year and either of those gentlemen were running.

Having never attended a service there, I can't say that the words from the pulpit are in a similar vein, but it's hardly a stretch to suppose that they are.

So, my question . . .

Is this kind of thing considered to be worship? Free exercise of religion? It's protected speech, sure, but is it speech that should be given a special favored status? That's what you're asking for, right? The right to do what other organizations don't have the right to do, on the basis of it being done in front of a cross? You are asking for special rights and protections for your tribe, because . . . because you think it oughta be that way.

I get it. What you're really asking for is NOT to have the intrusive nose of the government sniffing around your church. I wouldn't want that, either. Still, surely you get that there's a legitimate question here—regardless of political slant.
Click to expand...

I despise that stuff - and for the moment let me say why. Personally, I don't want as a pastor, anything that I say about candidates or that the church proclaims about candidates or parties, to get in the way of someone hearing the Gospel. I've got Rs, libertarians and Ds that attend the church I pastor and I hope to reach others no matter their political affiliation.

That said, I absolutely believe that the Gospel and the Christian message in general has political implications and that there are issues in the political world that I would be negligent in my calling if I avoid for fear of governmental intrusion. And it is that that I'll fight for. No matter how out of step those implications/directives/teachings are to the accepted political orthodoxy.

And unlike you possibly, I am under no illusion that FFRF and the myriad of other groups like them are fine with a church expressing these views in a public way. And my concern isn't alleviated by recourse to "American Exceptionalism." Just isn't.

All that said, I also think those who put signs out like that need to be flogged nearly merciless - but not by the government. By the broader church and Christians. In other words - self-regulation.

Now to your fairly loaded next to last paragraph, let me turn. And let me do it two ways. The first is back to my question regarding 501c5s (unions). Why are they given special favored status to do the same thing if not worse (like becoming strongmen for actual candidates)? Do you consider that wrong or do you think it is acceptable? If acceptable, why should they have that special favored status? It's free speech and assembly and all that, but why is it tax-exempt? Are you fine with that special right and protection? If you are, why are you fine with it but not for that church you drive by?

Or, on a bit more personal note - does the sort of political drive and blatant politicking (often with a vile/vitriolic flavor of its own) that has gone on for a long, long time in progressive or mainline or black churches bother you? You have seen it haven't you?

My point of course is consistency. Are you consistent?

The second way I'd address your next to last paragraph is to say, I think yanking tax-exempt status from such is fitting. They deserve it. I also think that groups that have been pushing the pulpit freedom day, or whatever it is called, are idiots.

Yet, I do say that with trepidation. For taxation implies control. And lines of demarcation can become blurry. And in a country, that I believe most would say is becoming more secular, I can't see the lines getting any clearer as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Our country has a constitutional and a historic reason for these protections. I hope those reasons remain viable.
 
Let me give my own anecdote, I was recently sitting in a hospital in Charlotte, during the surgery of a parishioner. While there, I overheard a phone conversation from a very nice African-American lady (and a sister in Christ). She was talking with someone else in her church and they were making preparations to bring in a local Democrat candidate to speak to the congregation, and it was all verryy supportive. Goes on all the time.
 
Then I am all in favor of taxing every religious place of worship no matter what political beliefs. Yes even the satanists.
 
BedellBrave said:
Now to your fairly loaded next to last paragraph, let me turn. And let me do it two ways. The first is back to my question regarding 501c5s (unions). Why are they given special favored status to do the same thing if not worse (like becoming strongmen for actual candidates)? Do you consider that wrong or do you think it is acceptable? If acceptable, why should they have that special favored status? It's free speech and assembly and all that, but why is it tax-exempt? Are you fine with that special right and protection? If you are, why are you fine with it but not for that church you drive by?

Or, on a bit more personal note - does the sort of political drive and blatant politicking (often with a vile/vitriolic flavor of its own) that has gone on for a long, long time in progressive or mainline or black churches bother you? You have seen it haven't you?

My point of course is consistency. Are you consistent?

...
Click to expand...

I have and I don't care for it. I support equity in application of the law.

As to labor organizations . . . 501 c (5) is something I don't know a lot about. I have more experience with 501 c (3); vicariously, at least. My SO is an attorney who deals with them a lot. I do know that there are distinctions between the activities of unions proper and and money-making enterprises that they own. i'm sure that, like any self-respecting big-money entity, they blur the lines wherever possible.

I would argue that your question as to churches is not exactly relevant to what labor unions are or are not allowed to do. A reasonable discussion, but a different one.
 
Julio3000 said:
I have and I don't care for it. I support equity in application of the law.

As to labor organizations . . . 501 c (5) is something I don't know a lot about. I have more experience with 501 c (3); vicariously, at least. My SO is an attorney who deals with them a lot. I do know that there are distinctions between the activities of unions proper and and money-making enterprises that they own. i'm sure that, like any self-respecting big-money entity, they blur the lines wherever possible.

I would argue that your question as to churches is not exactly relevant to what labor unions are or are not allowed to do. A reasonable discussion, but a different one.
Click to expand...

Why would an association based on labor concerns be treated differently than an association based on educational, charitable, religious, etc. concerns when it comes to politics and tax exemption? Not sure why the question isn't at least somewhat relevant.
 
Thanks - so 501c5s are 501c4s to which contributions aren't tax deductible. Haven't read far enough. Does that include dues? Are dues taxable or not? I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top