| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AnonyMouse

Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 453
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I seem to remember a couple of churches being investigated by the IRS during the last year or so, based on complaints, because the pastors preached against war. The Bush IRS took those complaints seriously, interpreting them as illegal endorsement of a liberal candidate. I don't recall reading about the IRS investigating any churches for preaching on issues that support conservative candidates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
springhill
Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 177
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately for all people of common sense, reporting "Rev." Keen to the IRS will do no good. There is no law preventing a preacher from preaching politics in his church. I Know this will probably disappoint some of us (it does me) but rev keen is protected by freedom of speech laws , even in the pulpit.
were he to organize a legit political action committee or something similar, and use the church as its base, then we got a case.
"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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnonyMouse

Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 453
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I noticed this morning that the good reverend's sign says "We will trade our 501c3 in 2008 for lose the weight."
Did someone play with his sign or is he backing off his passionately held convictions? Does that even make any sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
.45chel

Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2859 Location: Chambersburg
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AnonyMouse, the sign doesn't make sense to me, but then, neither did the first one. It's too bad for him that I made a pdf file of the picture in the Public Opinion with him right next to it. I'm willing to bet I wasn't the only one who reserved a copy of that picture.
As for IRS investigations, it certainly seems like the current admin has a say in who gets investigated, remember back in 2003 and 2004 the politcal events that republicans were holding in churches? I kept waiting for something to happen with that, but the NAACP was investigated instead.
Spring, it isn't about freedom of speech. It's about tax exemption. _________________ I demand euphoria! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coppy

Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2413 Location: Chambersburg
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .45chel wrote: |
Spring, it isn't about freedom of speech. It's about tax exemption. |
Yeah, I don't think that endorsing a candidate is breaking any sort of written law; it's more or less a violation of the tax code and a major criticism is that the IRS has been put in the precarious position of monitoring this sort of thing.
It is, in principle, a violation of the constitution in my opinion, regardless of free speech. If there is a separation of church and state, then it makes sense to me that churches are not required to pay taxes (and that its members may write off their contributions) in return for not meddling in political process, which includes the specific endorsements of candidates. I don't care what anyone says in private, but politics and religion mix way more in this country than I'm comfortable with.
What I never understood was why being secular was such a negative thing? Aren't religiously free countries supposed to be secular? Bill O'Reilly has an entire book attacking "progressive secularists." What am I missing? Would we rather have a Christian theocracy? The New Holy Roman Empire?
Ah, what we need is a good, American Inquisition.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
springhill
Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 177
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of people say there is no constitutional separation.
Congress shall make no law" .. it says.
Again I reiterate that a church cannot lose its tax exempt status simply because the preacher brings politics into the pulpit. If that were true, then there would be no jerry falwell (god rest his miserable soul)
no pat robertsons, and the like.
Only if a church were so bold as to form a political action committee and give donations to a specfic politician(s) , then the feathers would fly.
This, from my brother in law who is a field auditor for the IRS.
And I am sure "Rev" keen is aware of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coppy

Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2413 Location: Chambersburg
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I understand the all the separation clause loopholes and ambiguity; but as for what a preacher can and can't say, as far as I know, they can talk politics all they want. They're just not supposed to endorse a specific candidate. I've also heard complaints being levied against clergy who speak out strongly against abortion when it is a relevant issue in an election year.
But it seems that the only time this is enforced is if a church specifically solicits funding based on their political position. "If you support Mike Huckabee, give us your tax exempt money." I would assume that's crossing some sort of line.
But, then again, it seems that most religious leaders do not even wish to go this route. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
springhill
Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 177
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The several christian Churches would argue that their pastor (their direct electrically powered hookup to god in a mysterious way that only christians know is real) is Leading them with one voice, they as a church are not supporting a political candidate, but following their christian teachings and supporting the "prophet" that is in a position to be president of their country... or some such sh**  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coppy

Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2413 Location: Chambersburg
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I passed by again today and sign is back to supporting Huckabee.
Whatever. After seeing that place, I really don't care anymore one way or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anonymous_coward

Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 534
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Coppy wrote: | | Well it's not like you can take any of these churches to task on it; if you send a church to court, they're not going to be seen as the bad guy. I just think it undermines the constitution. |
I'm not sure there's really any legal argument here? Can you fill me in on what it would be?
that being said, I agree that the practice is appalling, I just don't see how it's illegal |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anonymous_coward

Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 534
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| springhill wrote: | Unfortunately for all people of common sense, reporting "Rev." Keen to the IRS will do no good. There is no law preventing a preacher from preaching politics in his church. I Know this will probably disappoint some of us (it does me) but rev keen is protected by freedom of speech laws , even in the pulpit.
were he to organize a legit political action committee or something similar, and use the church as its base, then we got a case.
"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. |
beat me to it |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coppy

Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2413 Location: Chambersburg
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anonymous_coward wrote: | | Coppy wrote: | | Well it's not like you can take any of these churches to task on it; if you send a church to court, they're not going to be seen as the bad guy. I just think it undermines the constitution. |
I'm not sure there's really any legal argument here? Can you fill me in on what it would be?
that being said, I agree that the practice is appalling, I just don't see how it's illegal |
Yeah, we had established that it isn't illegal and I didn't really mean to apply it was, at least not in the "you're going to be fined" sense. The problem is that it's the IRS's responsibility to enforce this and, as spring pointed out, there's really nothing they can do.
That said, there is at least one example I know of where a church has lost 501(c)3 exemption for making political statements, but I think there needs to be a clear link to such an endorsement and the solicitation of tax exempt donations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|