Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religious leaders: Lawmakers need to ask voters to raise taxes ... (State of Washington)
The News Tribune ^ | 4-8-09 | Joe Turner

Posted on 04/09/2009 10:26:48 AM PDT by Jo Nuvark

The Tribune would not let me capture any text, but I urge you to read this outrageous letter from "Religious Leaders". ***** This is out of line and insulting that even my Nazarene District Superintendant signed it. ***** It's true... Even the elect will be deceived!


TOPICS: Current Events; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: entitlements; for; pastors; suckling

1 posted on 04/09/2009 10:26:49 AM PDT by Jo Nuvark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vicki; goodnesswins; Libertina; sionnsar; Baynative; DennisR; Horatio Gates; bigfootbob; Spunky; ...

Washington State Religious Leaders
under the socialist spell ... PING!


2 posted on 04/09/2009 10:28:08 AM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
Religious leaders: Lawmakers need to ask voters to raise taxes ... (State of Washington)

Taxpaying Citizen: State of Washington Voters need to ask "Religious Leaders" to STFU.

3 posted on 04/09/2009 10:32:28 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina; kayti; narses; Avid Coug; RedinaBlue; trustandhope; SoldierMedic; Global2010; ...
Thanks to Jo Nuvark for the ping.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Say WA? Evergreen State ping

Quick link: WA State Board

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

4 posted on 04/09/2009 10:33:07 AM PDT by sionnsar ((Iran Azadi | 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | "Also sprach Telethustra" - NonValueAdded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
Here's the text of the letter, Jo:
Open Letter on the Need for Revenue from Religious Leaders

What kind of state do we want to live in?

We believe all caring citizens want to live in a state where life’s basic necessities are met.

As religious leaders of Washington State we call upon our legislators to face the daunting challenge of balancing the state budget, with its $9 billion revenue shortfall, with courage and compassion. This cannot be accomplished without increasing revenues.

The massive budget cuts proposed in the Governor, House and Senate budgets devastate life line services such as childcare, public health, health care for kids and adults, housing and care for seniors. It denies opportunities for a quality public education essential for our children’s future. Public services are more important than ever when families lose jobs, lose healthcare and are otherwise economically stressed. To live up to our moral responsibility for the common good, we must find ways to raise additional revenues.

[More:]

In times like this, we need visionary leadership – that is why we call upon the best minds available to identify additional revenue sources that will be in the best interest of our communities and the least onerous upon lower to middle income workers. In our difficult situation there are some who are better able to bear the economic burden than others. We understand the impact of Initiative 960 and the supermajority vote required by both the House and Senate to pass any tax or fee increase. Because of this we urge the legislature to refer a ballot measure to the people that would maintain core programs that assist our most vulnerable residents: from our children, to our unemployed, to those without health coverage and without shelter, to those living with a disability, and to at-risk seniors.

Yes, we are doing our share in helping people in our communities get through these hard times, but as important as charity is, our churches and congregations are not equipped to maintain the critical social safety net programs and the investments of state government. As economists have said, cutting or eliminating services is not the solution. Maintaining services and keeping our current investments is a critical way to improve our sluggish economy. We call upon you as we call upon the members of our faith communities to join us in an effort to raise revenues recognizing that we live in a state with wealth and resources.

We urge you to fulfill your role as responsible legislators and we will fulfill ours as partners in educating and creating the public will to solve the challenges we face in this economy.

Sincerely

Rev. David Alger
Executive Minister – Associated Ministries of Tacoma & Pierce County

Rev. Paul Benz
Director – Lutheran Public Policy Office of Washington State

Ms. LeeAnne Beres
Executive Director – Earth Ministry/Washington Power & Light

Bishop Wm. Chris Boerger
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – Northwest Washington Synod

Rev. Randy Craker
District Superintendent – Church of the Nazarene – Northwest District

Rev. Michael Denton
Conference Minister – Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Church of Christ

Rev. Tom Ewell
Clerk - Friends Committee on Washington Public Policy

Rabbi David Fine
Director – Union for Reform Judaism Pacific Northwest Council

Rev. Shermella Garrett
Presiding Elder – African Methodist Episcopal Church

Bishop Grant Hagiya
United Methodist Church – Pacific Northwest Conference

Rev. Rebecca Hale
Regional Minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) – Northwest Region

Rev. Sanford Hampton
Assistant Bishop – Episcopal Diocese of Olympia

Sister Linda Haydock
Executive Director – Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center

Ms. Janine Larsen
District Executive – Pacific Northwest District of the Unitarian Universalist Association

Rabbi James Mirel
Washington State Coalition of Rabbis

Rev. Sharon Moe
Tacoma District Superintendent – Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church

Rev. Jack Olive
Assistant Dean - School of Theology & Ministry – Seattle University

Rev. Dr. Marcia Patton
Executive Minister – Evergreen Baptist Association

Mr. Michael Ramos
Executive Director – Church Council of Greater Seattle

Rt. Rev. Greg Rickel, Bishop
Episcopal Church USA – Olympia Diocese

Rev. Bavi Edna Rivera – Bishop Suffragan
Episcopal Church USA – Olympia Diocese

Rev. Pat Simpson
Seattle District Superintendent – Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church

Very Reverend Abbot Tryphon
Russian Orthodox Church – All Merciful Savior Monastery

Bishop James E. Waggoner, Jr.
Episcopal Church USA – Diocese of Spokane

Bishop Martin Wells
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – Eastern Washington-Idaho Synod

Ms. Alice Woldt
Executive Director – Washington Association of Churches

Ms. Mary Ellen Wood
Executive Director - Interfaith Association of Northwest Washington

For further information please contact Rev. Paul Benz


5 posted on 04/09/2009 10:35:36 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark; LibreOuMort
Happy (but not surprised) to see the Anglican Province of the Christ the King is not represented!
6 posted on 04/09/2009 10:37:31 AM PDT by sionnsar ((Iran Azadi | 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | "Also sprach Telethustra" - NonValueAdded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

I thought churches lost their tax exempt status if they engaged in political activities.

Is that not true?

Does somebody need to point that out to them?


7 posted on 04/09/2009 10:38:54 AM PDT by djf (Live quiet. Dream loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

Any Southern Baptist Convention or NW Conservative Baptist Association churches in there? ... :-)

http://www.sbc.net/

http://www.cbnw.org/


8 posted on 04/09/2009 10:44:27 AM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

You said — I thought churches lost their tax exempt status if they engaged in political activities.

Some IRS documentation for churches...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

I don’t think that they were preaching from the pulpit to their congregations. I don’t believe they are prohibited from participating individually (outside of their church) in other political events.

But, see what that documentation in the IRS publication says. It’s supposed to be a handbook for churches.


9 posted on 04/09/2009 10:56:40 AM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

All of the apostate church. Thanks for naming names.


10 posted on 04/09/2009 10:59:32 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

They are specifically asking for something IN THE NAME OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CHURCHES.

Nobody who signed this thing said anything like “Joe Blow, truckdriver from Centralia”...

Anyways I just thought I’d mention it. You can bet if they asked to LOWER taxes, the big hats would be on their case about it...


11 posted on 04/09/2009 11:03:26 AM PDT by djf (Live quiet. Dream loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: djf

Well..., that’s why I gave you the IRS handbook for churches. They do address those issues in there...


12 posted on 04/09/2009 11:04:31 AM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

Why don’t they lobby for state sovereignty...take back the forests for logging? More jobs, more revenue.


13 posted on 04/09/2009 11:08:15 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

These “religious leaders” have it backwards.

We voters have to “request” our legislature to decrease spending. That’s what our TEA Party’s are about.

Any in Clark County or near by, don’t forget our Pork Protest, April 18 on the County Courthouse lawn, 11 AM to 1 PM.

Anywhere else there is one, go and attend. Send Olympia loud messages.


14 posted on 04/09/2009 11:08:24 AM PDT by DakotaRed (Don't you wish you had supported a conservative when you had the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

“I thought churches lost their tax exempt status if they engaged in political activities”

Not when they support the liberal socialist agenda. Speak out against abortion, gay rights, immigration, freedom of religion, etc. and hyour church will be driven to the edge by the IRS.

However, you need to look at what churches (?) are really signing on to this bunk. Most (many) are so liberal that they can hardly be classify as a Christian church.


15 posted on 04/09/2009 11:09:29 AM PDT by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Really! It's time; NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac

GLAD I sold my house and exited that leftist sewer of Seattle two Summers ago...


16 posted on 04/09/2009 11:49:21 AM PDT by Mister Muggles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Thanks Alex!


17 posted on 04/09/2009 12:27:51 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

The unions are starting their ad campaign today, as well. The health services union. I assume that is the SEIU, that passed that initiative to organize the day care and health care workers, under the guise of training. That is one of the unions that is suing Gregoire.


18 posted on 04/09/2009 12:28:47 PM PDT by Eva (union motto - Aim for mediocrity, it's only fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mister Muggles; dirtymac; djf; DakotaRed; Star Traveler; DLfromthedesert; anniegetyourgun; ...

I sent this to my pastor in hopes of starting a
conversation about the meltdown to luke warm
status of our church.

Without federal, state or any other kind of
funding, the church has always practiced welfare
by taking care of the widows and the orphans.
Legislated charity has trounced Scripture and the
common sense instruction from God’s Word ...

“No workee, No eatee”. (2Thessalonians 3:10)

What we have encouraged are lazy and promiscuous
people who expect to be taken care of by the Government.
Thanks to our not so educational system, these same
people have no idea from where the money comes.

“Who is John Galt?”


19 posted on 04/09/2009 12:44:50 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
Good for you. I hope your pastor takes note.

I am thrilled that mine is getting bolder with each passing month.

20 posted on 04/09/2009 12:46:16 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
What? Where's the Wiccam representation and who the heck are these posers?

Rev. Tom Ewell

Clerk - Friends Committee on Washington Public Policy

Rabbi David Fine

Director – Union for Reform Judaism Pacific Northwest Council

Rev. Shermella Garrett

Presiding Elder – African Methodist Episcopal Church(that's a mouthful)

If the legislature wants to get rid of the deficit, get rid of the non essential programs and employees that caused the deficit.

21 posted on 04/09/2009 12:50:38 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Obama went down on that Saudi King faster than an elevator whore in a 2 story building.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac; djf

Well, dirtymac, you were saying — Not when they support the liberal socialist agenda. Speak out against abortion, gay rights, immigration, freedom of religion, etc. and hyour church will be driven to the edge by the IRS.

Well, since some people are not actually looking at the IRS rules and regulations regarding this, I thought I would post it right here so you could see.

You can do any of these things — liberal or conservative — as the IRS guidelines say.

I think what you may be observing, is that (very simply) the liberal ones may be the ones who are speaking out on issues while the conservative ones are *not* doing so in a manner like this.

So, rather than it being *illegal* — the conservative ones simply are *not* engaging the society...

The following is from the IRS handbook (the parts that appear to be relevant here...)


Substantial Lobbying Activity

In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Measuring Lobbying Activity

Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial. Churches must use the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use the expenditure test described in the next section.

Consequences of excessive lobbying activity. Under the substantial part test, a church or religious organization that conducts excessive lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, a religious organization is subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of its lobbying expenditures for the year in which it ceases to qualify for exemption. Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in loss of tax-exempt status.

Expenditure test. Although churches are not eligible, religious organizations may elect the expenditure test under IRC section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity. Under the expenditure test, the extent of an organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status, provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed an amount specified in IRC section 4911. This limit is generally based upon the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000.

Religious organizations electing to use the expenditure test must file IRS Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible IRC Section 501(c)(3) Organization To Make Expenditures To Influence Legislation, at any time during the tax year for which it is to be effective. The election remains in effect for succeeding years unless it is revoked by the organization. Revocation of the election is effective beginning with the year following the year in which the revocation is filed. Religious organizations may wish to consult their tax advisors to determine their eligibility for, and the advisability of, electing the expenditure test.

Consequences of excessive lobbying activity. Under the expenditure test, a religious organization that engages in excessive lobbying activity over a four-year period may lose its tax-exempt status, making all of its income for that period subject to tax. Should the organization exceed its lobbying expenditure dollar limit in a particular year, it must pay an excise tax equal to 25 percent of the excess.

Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious 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. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Individual Activity by Religious Leaders

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of church functions and publications, religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization. The following are examples of situations involving endorsements by religious leaders.

Example 1: Minister A is the minister of Church J, a section 501(c)(3) organization, and is well known in the community. With their permission, Candidate T publishes a full-page ad in the local newspaper listing five prominent ministers who have personally endorsed Candidate T, including Minister A. Minister A is identified in the ad as the minister of Church J. The ad states, “Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only.” The ad is paid for by Candidate T’s campaign committee. Since the ad was not paid for by Church J, the ad is not otherwise in an official publication of Church J, and the endorsement is made by Minister A in a personal capacity, the ad does not constitute campaign intervention by Church J.

Example 2: Minister B is the minister of Church K, a section 501(c)(3) organization, and is well known in the community. Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister B does not say he is speaking on behalf of Church K. His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church K. Because Minister B did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church K, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church K.

Example 3: Minister C is the minister of Church I, a section 501(c)(3) organization. Church I publishes a monthly church newsletter that is distributed to all church members. In each issue, Minister C has a column titled “My Views.” The month before the election, Minister C states in the “My Views” column, “It is my personal opinion that Candidate U should be reelected.” For that one issue, Minister C pays from his personal funds the portion of the cost of the newsletter attributable to the “My Views” column. Even though he paid part of the cost of the newsletter, the newsletter is an official publication of the church. Because the endorsement appeared in an official publication of Church I, it constitutes campaign intervention attributed to Church I.

Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M, a section 501(c)(3) organization. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concluded by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Because Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention by to Church M.

Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention

Like other section 501(c)(3) organizations, some churches and religious organizations take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

— whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office,

— whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions,

— whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election,

— whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election,

— whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office,

— whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election, and

— whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.

A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

Example 1: Church O, a section 501(c)(3) organization, prepares and finances a full page newspaper advertisement that is published in several large circulation newspapers in State V shortly before an election in which Senator C is a candidate for nomination in a party primary. Senator C is the incumbent candidate in a party primary. The advertisement states that a pending bill in the United States Senate would provide additional opportunities for State V residents to participate in faith-based programs by providing funding to such church-affiliated programs. The advertisement ends with the statement “Call or write Senator C to tell him to vote for this bill, despite his opposition in the past.” Funding for faith-based programs has not been raised as an issue distinguishing Senator C from any opponent. The bill is scheduled for a vote before the election. The advertisement identifies Senator C’s position as contrary to O’s position. Church O has not violated the political campaign intervention prohibition: The advertisement does not mention the election or the candidacy of Senator C or distinguish Senator C from any opponent. The timing of the advertising and the identification of Senator C are directly related to a vote on the identified legislation. The candidate identified, Senator C, is an officeholder who is in a position to vote on the legislation.

Example 2: Church R, a section 501(c)(3) organization, prepares and finances a radio advertisement urging an increase in state funding for faith-based education in State X, which requires a legislative appropriation. Governor E is the governor of State X. The radio advertisement is first broadcast on several radio stations in State X beginning shortly before an election in which Governor E is a candidate for re-election. The advertisement is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by Church R on the same issue. The advertisement cites numerous statistics indicating that faith-based education in State X is under funded. Although the advertisement does not say anything about Governor E’s position on funding for faith-based education, it ends with “Tell Governor E what you think about our under-funded schools.” In public appearances and campaign literature, Governor E’s opponent has made funding of faith-based education an issue in the campaign by focusing on Governor E’s veto of an income tax increase to increase funding for faith-based education. At the time the advertisement is broadcast, no legislative vote or other major legislative activity is scheduled in the State X legislature on state funding of faith-based education. Church R has violated the political campaign prohibition: The advertisement identifies Governor E, appears shortly before an election in which Governor E is a candidate, is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by Church R on the same issue, is not timed to coincide with a non-election event such as a legislative vote or other major legislative action on that issue, and takes a position on an issue that the opponent has used to distinguish himself from Governor E.

Example 3: Candidate A and Candidate B are candidates for the state senate in District W of State X. The issue of State X funding for a faith-based indigent hospital care in District W is a prominent issue in the campaign. Both candidates have spoken out on the issue. Candidate A supports funding such care; Candidate B opposes the project and supports increasing State X funding for public hospitals instead. P is the head of the board of elders at Church C, a section 501(c)(3) organization located in District W. At C’s annual fundraising dinner in District W, which takes place in the month before the election, P gives a long speech about health care issues, including the issue of funding for faith-based programs. P does not mention the name of any candidate or any political party. However, at the end of the speech, P makes the following statement, “For those of you who care about quality of life in District W and the desire of our community for health care responsive to their faith, there is a very important choice coming up next month. We need more funding for health care. Increased public hospital funding will not make a difference. You have the power to respond to the needs of this community. Use that power when you go to the polls and cast your vote in the election for your state senator.” C has violated the political campaign intervention prohibition as a result of P’s remarks at C’s official function shortly before the election, in which P referred to the upcoming election after stating a position on an issue that is a prominent issue in a campaign that distinguishes the candidates.

Inviting a Candidate to Speak

Depending on the facts and circumstances, a church or religious organization may invite political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity as candidates, or individually (not as a candidate). Candidates may also appear without an invitation at organization events that are open to the public.


22 posted on 04/09/2009 1:08:12 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac; djf

I might also make one additional note here.

One very clear way that a “church” can get rid of *all* IRS oversight on these issues and that the church can even endorse candidates, if they want to and give donations from the church to candidates and give donations from the church to political campaigns and issues... is for the church to completely dump their 501 (c) (3) designation.

Then they have no limitations.

It would seem — to me — that “greed” may be the factor in churches *not getting out from under* the IRS guidelines...

No one seems to mention that one...


23 posted on 04/09/2009 1:11:34 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

How bout those churches starting to pay taxes.


24 posted on 04/09/2009 1:15:29 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Salvation
I am amazed the variety of Church leaders here. Should make Washingtonian Republicans wonder about attending their usual church.


Executive Minister – Associated Ministries of Tacoma & Pierce County

Director – Lutheran Public Policy Office of Washington State

Executive Director – Earth Ministry/Washington Power & Light

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – Northwest Washington Synod

District Superintendent – Church of the Nazarene – Northwest District

Conference Minister – Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Church of Christ

Clerk - Friends Committee on Washington Public Policy

Director – Union for Reform Judaism Pacific Northwest Council

Presiding Elder – African Methodist Episcopal Church

United Methodist Church – Pacific Northwest Conference

Regional Minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) – Northwest Region

Assistant Bishop – Episcopal Diocese of Olympia

Executive Director – Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center

District Executive – Pacific Northwest District of the Unitarian Universalist Association

Washington State Coalition of Rabbis

Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church

Assistant Dean - School of Theology & Ministry – Seattle University

 Evergreen Baptist Association, Church Council of Greater Seattle

Bishop Episcopal Church USA – Olympia Diocese

Episcopal Church USA – Olympia Diocese

Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church

Russian Orthodox Church – All Merciful Savior Monastery

Episcopal Church USA – Diocese of Spokane

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – Eastern Washington-Idaho Synod

 Washington Association of Churches

Executive Director - Interfaith Association of Northwest Washington


26 posted on 04/09/2009 1:31:29 PM PDT by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

Give him a copy of “The Tragdy of American Compassion” by Marvin Olasky.


27 posted on 04/09/2009 2:37:18 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Church members should withhold donations claiming the State took their money. I would not give the church a dime after this back stabbing fleecing.


28 posted on 04/09/2009 3:25:21 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

What they need to preach is the separation of the goats and the sheep. The sheep take personal actions of the least of these and the goats depend on public dollars and not personal interactions. IMO


29 posted on 04/09/2009 5:15:12 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

Sheep and goats... good analysis.


30 posted on 04/09/2009 5:36:33 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

Now THAT is a great idea!

I’d bet those loud-mouthed pastors would understand THAT better than anything else their congregations could say to them.


31 posted on 04/10/2009 4:56:02 AM PDT by WayneS (Those Fumble Fingers Strike Again!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

Thanks, FRiend, for the ping.


32 posted on 04/13/2009 10:50:44 AM PDT by Joya (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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