Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pastors pledge to defy IRS, preach politics from pulpit ahead of election
Fox News ^ | 09/20/2012 | Cristine Corbin

Posted on 09/20/2012 7:36:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.

The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.

“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.” Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.

“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”

An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: irs; pastors; politics

1 posted on 09/20/2012 7:36:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I wonder how the IRS is going to enforce this law...

Are they going to send thousands of agents to swoop down on every single church and arrest the pastors and close the churches down?

This, I’d like to see...


2 posted on 09/20/2012 7:37:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If they were black Democrat pastors, then the IRS would not even be interested


3 posted on 09/20/2012 7:38:28 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Finally, our pasters are getting active. This may even compel me to return to church.

They’ll need the practice anyway for the upcoming war with Islam.


4 posted on 09/20/2012 7:39:11 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They never should have stopped.


5 posted on 09/20/2012 7:39:28 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let me guess...they will be screaming racism if any of them lose their tax exemptions.


6 posted on 09/20/2012 7:40:34 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No they challenge them on their 501(c)3 tax exempt status....this could get ugly but as we know, God will win, not satan


7 posted on 09/20/2012 7:41:03 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Saul Alinsky tactic: Overwhelm The System.

RULE 4:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.


8 posted on 09/20/2012 7:44:53 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There’s no need to preach politics.

Simply preach world views and their origins.

The Judeo-Christian world view is based in Gen. 1-12. Agree with those and you end up leaning to the right. God is God, life is valuable, man is prone to evil, and Israel is chosen.

The secular world view is a rejection of the first 12 chapters of Genesis. This leads to a leftward position. Life is not valuable, man is good, government is god, and Israel is nothing.

Politics is simply the open expression of a world view. In our generation, we are discussing whether indeed the God of Israel has spoken.


9 posted on 09/20/2012 7:46:54 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

BUMP


10 posted on 09/20/2012 7:47:15 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If a pastor wants to be 100% free to say whatever he wants the church should renounce its tax exemption.

No one forces churches to maintain a tax exemption & they do so knowing full well what the restrictions are.

With the shekels come the shackles.

11 posted on 09/20/2012 7:47:15 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Depends. If the pastors are black and/or Liberal, they’ll get a pass. If not, the IRS will probably have their status yanked immediately and start seizing stuff.


12 posted on 09/20/2012 7:53:01 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Black preachers are infamous for politicking from the pulpit and never lose tax-exemptions. So why not these guys do the same. They won’t mention the black preachers but they know.... .


13 posted on 09/20/2012 7:53:41 AM PDT by dennisw (Government be yo mamma - Re-elect Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The ghosts of the Revolutionary War Pastors is arising? Amen Brothers and Sisters. If not now, when?
14 posted on 09/20/2012 7:53:57 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

LOL .. me hopes God is not mad at me. is should be are.


15 posted on 09/20/2012 7:56:17 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gdani

“If a pastor wants to be 100% free to say whatever he wants the church should renounce its tax exemption.”


I TOTALLY disagree. Churches & Christian organizations (schools, colleges & hospitals) should not accept government funding for it will then obligate them to government criteria.

However, this is a different matter. Religious organizations should NOT be taxed. Foregoing their tax exempt status would be fundamentally wrong.


16 posted on 09/20/2012 7:56:54 AM PDT by ne1410s ("We will not tolerate your intolerance!!!" ...huh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Welcome to The Black Robe Regiment

The Black Robe Regiment is a resource and networking entity where church leaders and laypeople can network and educate themselves as to our biblical responsibility to stand up for our Lord and Savior and to protect the freedoms and liberties granted to a moral people in the divinely inspired US Constitution. The Regiment had its historical beginnings during the Revolutionary War when Pastors from across the colonies arose and lead their congregations into the battle for freedom. Unlike today, the church during this time served as the center-point for political debate and discussion on the relevant news of the day. Today's church leaders have all but lost that concept of leading their congregations in a Godly manner in all aspects of their worldly existence and are afraid to speak out against the progressive agenda that has dominated our political system for the past century. Through this time the church and God himself has been under assault, marginalized, and diminished by the progressives and secularists. The false wall of separation of church and state has been constructed in such a manner that most are unaware of its limited boundaries. The church and the body of Christ has been attacked on all fronts and challenged by the progressive courts and groups such as the ACLU while we have sat idle in consent.

The time has come that we must now arise and awaken to the danger of this hyper-progressive agenda that so permeates every aspect of our political, legal, and educational systems. It is time now to educate ourselves and push back against the erosion of our freedoms and liberties and restore the constitutional authority back to all aspects of our governance. It will take the leaders of our churches to shepherd their flocks as did their predecessors during our first fight for liberty.

It is in this spirit that we have created this site. It is to serve as a resource and reference for church leaders and laypeople alike. It is to be a portal for Christians to communicate and network in order to restore the body of Christ to its rightful position of tolerant leadership in all aspects of our government.


Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

"It was Sunday morning early in the year 1776. In the church where Pastor Muhlenberg preached, it was a regular service for his congregation, but a quite different affair for Muhlenberg himself. Muhlenberg's text for the day was Ecclesiastes 3 where it explains, 'To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven; a time to be born, and a time to die, a time to plant, and a time to pluck what is planted...'"

"Coming to the end of his sermon, Peter Muhlenberg turned to his congregation and said, 'In the language of the holy writ, there was a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.' As those assembled looked on, Pastor Muhlenberg declared, 'There is a time to fight, and that time is now coming!' Muhlenberg then proceeded to remove his robes revealing, to the shock of his congregation, a military uniform."

"Marching to the back of the church he declared, 'Who among you is with me?' On that day 300 men from his church stood up and joined Peter Muhlenberg. They eventually became the 8th Virginia Brigade fighting for liberty."

"Frederick Muhlenberg, Peter's brother, was against Peter's level of involvement in the war. Peter responded to Frederick writing, 'I am a Clergyman it is true, but I am a member of the Society as well as the poorest Layman, and my Liberty is as dear to me as any man, shall I then sit still and enjoy myself at Home when the best Blood of the Covenant is spilling? ...So far am I from thinking that I act wrong, I am convinced it is my duty to do so and duly I owe to God and my country."

17 posted on 09/20/2012 7:56:57 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

and this will cause the journey to begin.


18 posted on 09/20/2012 7:57:25 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A much better way to solve this problem is to dispose of the 501c3 exemption. Now a days, the paperwork would be a lot less to simply be a business, and the liability would be far less. Since the Bush days, a church cannot give a check to a missionary to help support them unless they are a part of church staff and get their social security, workers comp payments and such paid. And if that missionary should say something like Allah is bad and some Muslim lawyer gets offended, he can now attach not only the church but all the church leadership properties as board members to the suit.

And heaven forbid, or at least IRS forbid that a Missionary in the African bush not get workers comp paid. He can't collect it, but they sure as heck will pay it.

Now, if the IRS should decree that a Church is in violation of its 501c3 the IRS can not only yank the 501c3, but confiscate all the properties of the Church because one of the New World Order “Justices” ruled that since the Church, built by the congregants was on lands that may have been paid for by the donations of the congregants under the 501c3, all properties belong now to the State.

The 501c3 is a State Chain on the necks of the Church, not just a gag order.

Now I am sure it is just a co-inky-dink that the State governments have been interpreting zoning laws lately to preclude free-assembly.

You want Church in the future, I might suggest setting up an underground one, because the days of freedom in religion in America has gone they way of most Constitutional ideas.

19 posted on 09/20/2012 7:57:57 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

YOu speak with truth.


20 posted on 09/20/2012 8:03:47 AM PDT by Chickensoup (STOP The Great O-ppression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

Have a Pastor cousin in one of the poorest parts of Kentucky. May have to send him this thread and ask his opinion and what his congregation thinks. Am thinking the answer is known ahead of time. And out of the hills they came to do battle, with the cry of FREEDOM.


21 posted on 09/20/2012 8:09:53 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Believe me, they have been teaching the evils of Islam and studying the Koran to see how it’s teachings are different since many began saying that Yahweh and Allah are the same God. If you study the Koran and compare it to the bible they are vastly different though it is obvious that some information was pulled from several books of the bible but thats where it ends. If you want to tell a lie and make it believable mix in some truth.

The Koran’s commandments teach the Muslims to lie to the Christians, infiltrate their lands, and kill them. It is a religion of violence whereas the bible teaches not to lie or murder and turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as yourself. The authors of the bible were honorable and Godly men. The author of the Koran had sex with a 9 year old girl and tells his followers that they will receive 72 virgins in their version of Heaven if they die for their cause. There are many more differences but those are just but a few highlights.

So tell me, which book would you be more likely to believe?


22 posted on 09/20/2012 8:15:47 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gdani
If a pastor wants to be 100% free to say whatever he wants the church should renounce its tax exemption.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That the power of taxing it by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it is too obvious to be denied. But taxation is said to be an absolute power which acknowledges no other limits than those expressly prescribed in the Constitution, and, like sovereign power of every other description, is intrusted to the discretion of those who use it. But the very terms of this argument admit that the sovereignty of the State, in the article of taxation itself, is subordinate to, and may be controlled by, the Constitution of the United States.

John Marshall McCulloch v. Maryland

Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20–25.

Citizens United v. FEC

Check mate

23 posted on 09/20/2012 8:15:57 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Don’t organizations like Planned Parenthood, Unions, Green groups, Media Matters and other “nonpartisan” political entities enjoy the same tax free status?

How do they not have any problems with political advocacy, donations etc?


24 posted on 09/20/2012 8:16:02 AM PDT by Kandy Atz ("Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
Citizens United v. FEC

Check mate

Except that the issues in Citizens United are easily distinguishable from this issue.

25 posted on 09/20/2012 8:23:42 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kandy Atz; Jim Robinson

One has to reference times present and times which have come and those long past. It has been ordained. It may not happen in my lifetime, though most has, except for WWII. The church remained silent and obeyed, turned the other cheek, so to speak. The other cheek has been slapped again and again and again. Any sane human can only take so much. The Rebellion Lives. Long Live The Rebellion! The aforestated are this site’s founder Jim Robinson’s words. May not be absolutely correctly stated, therefore no quotes. Am pinging Jim as a courtesy, simply because this is proof, The Rebellion Lives.


26 posted on 09/20/2012 8:26:18 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ne1410s

The churches donate much of the funds they receive to people in need and charities. To take away their tax exempt status will only make theim curtail their humanitarian endeavors and remove hope of the people.

Oh CRAP I just figured out what the one world government is trying to o here...


27 posted on 09/20/2012 8:28:13 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kandy Atz
Don’t organizations like Planned Parenthood, Unions, Green groups, Media Matters and other “nonpartisan” political entities enjoy the same tax free status?

How do they not have any problems with political advocacy, donations etc?

501(c)(3) organizations are prevented from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office.

It does not mean they cannot talk politics, criticize elected officials & candidates & more.

If you see an advocacy group endorsing or opposing a candidate they - at least the ones who know what they are doing - are doing it under a different legal structure, such as a PAC.

In other words, you might think of a group like Planned Parenthood as a simple non-profit. In reality, they are most likely split into a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4), a PAC, etc, etc.

I don't think NRA is even a 501(c)(3). I think they exist as a (c)(4) & a PAC.

In other words, almost every other non-profit that wants to engage in politicking has found a way to do it legally while still maintaining a 501(c)(3) organization.

In this case, some churches want to do the same but without jumping through the hoops everyone else has to. And they argue they should get special treatment simply because they are religious in nature.

28 posted on 09/20/2012 8:31:28 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No one gets arrested for this, the church just loses Tax Exempt Status.... Which means the church will now have to pay 25-30% of their revenues to the Government.

Frankly this is long past time to happen, churches need to stop being blackmailed, just accept that Ceasar wants his blood money, and TELL THE TRUTH FROM THE PULPIT, PERIOD.


29 posted on 09/20/2012 8:31:58 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Bible believing churches never have stopped.


30 posted on 09/20/2012 8:41:16 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Except that the issues in Citizens United are easily distinguishable from this issue. In Citizens United SCOTUS held that the freedom of speech cannot be abridged because of the organization that the speaker belongs to.

John Marshall held that the taxation cannot be used as an excuse to circumscribe the rights and powers bestowed in the Constitution.

In other words - Citizen v. United presents sanctions on the preachers; McColloch v. Maryland prevents sanctions on churches.

These churches are correct. That legislation shouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

31 posted on 09/20/2012 9:01:56 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
In Citizens United SCOTUS held that the freedom of speech cannot be abridged because of the organization that the speaker belongs to.

Citizens United did no such thing. There's a decades long history of case law from SCOTUS holding that speech cannot be constitutionally prevented because of the who the speaker is, the organization they belong to, or the viewpoint articulated (although, like all constitutional rights, that is not absolute).

Citizens United was more about how the speech was paid for and when exactly it could be exercised.

John Marshall held that the taxation cannot be used as an excuse to circumscribe the rights and powers bestowed in the Constitution.

I have no problem lifting 501(c)(3) politicking restrictions on all non-profits, not just churches.

These churches are correct. That legislation shouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny.

If your read is ironclad, why is no one litigating this issue?

Here's an answer - because there is no right to tax exemption and churches are free to renounce their 501(c)(3) status and say whatever they want -- which I recommend.

32 posted on 09/20/2012 9:21:41 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gdani
In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 540 U. S. 93 , this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 , that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.

§441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.

Less than two years after Buckley, <>Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784–785. Thus the law stood until Austin upheld a corporate independent expenditure restriction, bypassing Buckley and Bellotti by recognizing a new governmental interest in preventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of [corporate] wealth … that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at 660. Pp. 25–32.

However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.

Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.

33 posted on 09/20/2012 10:04:36 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The IRS didn’t do jack to all the Black churches in Cleveland in 2008 that preached “Vote for Obama” and rented buses to get people to the polls.

My BFF, a black christian, had to leave her church because she refused to support Obama and the congregation called her all kinds of nasty things.


34 posted on 09/20/2012 10:13:28 AM PDT by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson