Clergy and Politics

[fromtheright]

Bartimaeus, you raise a good point. If a church is claiming a tax exemption at tax time, it is claiming that it meets those requirements. But I don't believe that the law requires pastors to stay away from moral issues that also happen to be political, such as homosexual marriage and abortion. I do believe that pastors should stay away from endorsing a candidate or even a political party from the pulpit if they seek a tax exemption, to comply with the statute, but to prohibit them from speaking to moral issues is a violation of the First Amendment, not an Establishment Clause issue. Which is also a separate issue from whether the statute itself is in violation of the religious liberty or free speech clauses.

 

[church mouse guy]

A church does not have to ask for a tax exemption. The US Constitution says that Congress can pass no law preventing the free exercise of religion.

A church can say whatever it likes in the pulpit. The government cannot regulate preaching for any reason, nor can the government legally tax a church. That would, as you can see, limit the free exercise of religion.

We are a society awash in unpunished crime and soaked with daily murders of the unborn. However, we are supposed to expend thousands of manhours to see what some Democrat says in some liberal church? Who cares what liberals do? Liberal churches don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It does not matter what basis you did it from, if you are a C-3 church you have made an agreement to stay out of politics. You are preaching politics when you talk about anything having to do with any candidate.

That simply is not true. When I address killing, I address it from the Bible. That is not political. When I address homosexuality, I address it from the Bible. That is not political. The fact that politics sometimes treads where SCripture already has is not my fault. But I cannot and will not give up preaching the Bible because politics steals a topic or two.

Your actions and your statements are inconsistent by your own admission.

No they're not. They are perfectly consistent. My authority in the pulpit is the Word, not politics or the IRS.

May God give you the wisdom to know that you are wrong on your position.

He has given me the wisdom to know that I am right, that I can preach the Bible in good conscience. This is not a difficult subject to learn about. You can do it very easily. On this, you are simply wrong.

 

[church mouse guy]

The law is crooked. It is pointless to enforce it against a bunch of ignorant liberal preachers. There are many ways around the law. The IRS itself is corrupt and the tax code itself is corrupt. The law must be repealed. No one cares what any preacher says in his pulpit. The last thing we need is more federal government and a bunch of federal agents running around monitoring sermons for political allusions. If we try to tax a church, the church will merely change their name and continue on.

We do not want to be like Canada.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
No one cares what any preacher says in his pulpit. The last thing we need is more federal government and a bunch of federal agents running around monitoring sermons for political allusions.

You are right. We already have them inside the church. They are called the deacons and congregation.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
A church does not have to ask for a tax exemption. The US Constitution says that Congress can pass no law preventing the free exercise of religion.

A church can say whatever it likes in the pulpit. The government cannot regulate preaching for any reason, nor can the government legally tax a church. That would, as you can see, limit the free exercise of religion.

The whole purpose as I understand it of 501(c)(3) was to limit the liability of a church and its members. I do know of a church that disbanded that was not incorporated all because of one non-believer who sued them. He took everything they had. Literally everything. The church was doing well until that point.

Plus try and get insurance and very few insurance companies will insure you.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Pastor Larry,
I believe the US v BJU case dealt with public policy and C-3's. BJU prohibited mixed nations dating and was brought to court because of it, (established public policy). If you preach against homosexual activity and say that it is wrong and that God will judge it as He does with all other sin, you are in violation as a C-3. Public policy must be espoused by C-3's. I do not say you are in violation alone. The courts have already ruled on it. You may say you are not inconsistent but you will be saying it all the way down to the IRS office where you will have to beg back your government welfare benefit for your church. I am not your enemy in this. I am just trying to show you where you really are. I have a friend who pastored in southern Indiana. A deacon in his church was sued in divorce court. The pastor was subpeonaed and the pastor walked into court with the Bible and the US Constitution in his hand. The woman listed the church in her suit. The judge told the preacher he had respect for the Bible and the Constitution but neither had any place in his court. The pastor asked why and the judge stated it was because the church was a C-3 organization. The judge further related that a C-3 is under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code. The court ruled in favor of the woman and the church had to pay back all the tithes that the deacon had payed with the wages his wife had made.
The end of this C-3 entanglement has not been fully felt yet, but it is coming.

(Additional note with no reflection to any statements made by Pastor Larry) I would like for one pastor who is a C-3 to have the guts to reject a Sodomite teacher for a teacher's position in their Christian school and tell the truth for the rejection. When it goes to court we would all see what happens to C-3's who stand on principle.
Thanks ----Bart

 

[Bartimaeus]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It does not matter what basis you did it from, if you are a C-3 church you have made an agreement to stay out of politics. You are preaching politics when you talk about anything having to do with any candidate.

That simply is not true. When I address killing, I address it from the Bible. That is not political. When I address homosexuality, I address it from the Bible. That is not political. The fact that politics sometimes treads where SCripture already has is not my fault.
But I cannot and will not give up preaching the Bible because politics steals a topic or two.

Your actions and your statements are inconsistent by your own admission.

No they're not. They are perfectly consistent. My authority in the pulpit is the Word, not politics or the IRS.

May God give you the wisdom to know that you are wrong on your position.

He has given me the wisdom to know that I am right, that I can preach the Bible in good conscience. This is not a difficult subject to learn about. You can do it very easily. On this, you are simply wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]It is not anyone's fault. The fact remains that moral issues are also going to be political issues. You will not be able to slice it where you want to. The IRS and the their courts will make that decision. It will not be left up to any of us preaching the truth. If a visitor takes issue with you preaching on a moral/political issue you will answer for it depending on how far the person wants to carry it.

I say to you keep on preaching and I am thankful that you are.

It all depends on who is doing the teaching. Learning about it can be done from different sources. I have already been in the courts where these issues have been argued and your position is the one that lost.

Thanks ----Bart

 

[Bartimaeus]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Bartimaeus, you raise a good point. If a church is claiming a tax exemption at tax time, it is claiming that it meets those requirements. But I don't believe that the law requires pastors to stay away from moral issues that also happen to be political, such as homosexual marriage and abortion. I do believe that pastors should stay away from endorsing a candidate or even a political party from the pulpit if they seek a tax exemption, to comply with the statute, but to prohibit them from speaking to moral issues is a violation of the First Amendment, not an Establishment Clause issue. Which is also a separate issue from whether the statute itself is in violation of the religious liberty or free speech clauses.

FTR, I appreciate your post very much. Let me ask you a question about the reality of where we are today. If I am a pastor and we have two candidates running for president, one is pro abortion and one is anti abortion and I preach a message on life and how Christians should vote for life and not convenience, then am I not endorsing one and blackballing the other. These preachers are skipping around on the light fantastic saying that they are not saying. They are only showing their real position. They are trying to walk the line and keep from losing their welfare church benies and not get caught. I think it is time to throw down the glove. I'd like to see a couple come out of the C-3 closet and speak the unadulterated truth. If I voted like they preach I would never pull the right lever, I would just get close enough to say I went into the booth.
Thanks -----Bart

 

[Bartimaeus]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
A church does not have to ask for a tax exemption. The US Constitution says that Congress can pass no law preventing the free exercise of religion.

A church can say whatever it likes in the pulpit. The government cannot regulate preaching for any reason, nor can the government legally tax a church. That would, as you can see, limit the free exercise of religion.

The whole purpose as I understand it of 501(c)(3) was to limit the liability of a church and its members. I do know of a church that disbanded that was not incorporated all because of one non-believer who sued them. He took everything they had. Literally everything. The church was doing well until that point.
Plus try and get insurance and very few insurance companies will insure you. </font>[/QUOTE]gb, I will attempt to explain in my limited ability the crux of the issue that you raised. "nor can the government legally tax a church"..You are right. The fundamental problem of exemption is that in applying for an exemption, a church is saying, "I agree with your right to tax us so we want to have your grace not to be taxed" We aquiesse (sp) the right to not be taxed and trade it for the privilege of not being taxed, (opening the door for the nose of the camel). Once the camel puts it's nose in the tent watch out she's a comin' on in sooner or later!
Your understanding of a C-3 being a "vehicle" to limit liability is correct. That is exactly what all the old time preachers thought was so great. They never dreamed in a million years that by the time that 1990 rolled around that one of the number one things taught at the Indiana University School of Law was how to break up the limited liability of corporations. Secondly and truthfully, if you have raised children and taught them right which I have all faith that you have...you have taught them to be fully responsible for their actions and decisions in life....at no time did you teach them LIMITED LIABILITY. If you did, you did not teach them according to the Scriptures because the Book that I have requires accountability. I am not saying that this is an easy way. I am not saying that this is a "winning" position. I am not trying to win. I am just saying it is the right position.

You gave us a nebulous example of a church somewhere pastored by somebody who was not a C-3 and lost everything. Maybe they were wrong and it was a righteous thing that God allowed. We don't know the facts. Maybe the pastor was young and inexperienced. Maybe the forces of DARKNESS won out on that battle, we don't know. We know this if they were right with God and were serving Him faithfully the Devil is going to charge them with all fervor.

As far as the insurance.....I can give you enough companies that will insure a church without the C-3 to take care of anyone who needs it.

Thanks ------Bart

 

[Alcott]

The federal government of course does not restrict what can or can not be proclaimed in a church. It's just like owning a machine gun... you are not 'restricted' from owning one, but you just have to pay an excise tax of $600 [the last value I know about] to own one. Nah, it's no restriction at all to have to pay for a privilege.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
Pastor Larry,
I believe the US v BJU case dealt with public policy and C-3's.

Not with respect to what we are talking about here. That was a completely different issue, and Goldsboro Christian Academy was a part of that as well and they completely forbad black enrollment. But that is irrelevant.

If you preach against homosexual activity and say that it is wrong and that God will judge it as He does with all other sin, you are in violation as a C-3.

No, simpl untrue, but again, irrelevant. I do not care the least about that.

I am just trying to show you where you really are.

Iam well aware of where I am. I don't need any info from you. YOu appear to be misinformed, but we have had this discussion before and I don't think you are going to change. That is fine.

As for the Indiana court case, I would be interested to see any substantiation of that. That sounds very far-fetched.

As for not hiring homosexuals, there is no reason to. If I were in that case, I wouldn't hire them becuase they were homosexual. I wouldn't hire them because they are unsaved and because they don't share the philosophy of the institution. Homosexuality is a side issue that reveals their spiritual state. But I wouldn't have a school either so I woulnd't have to worry about that.

This 501C3 issue is way overblown. It shouldn't be. Most churches are not 501C3 anyway. We are not. Tax exemption is not the same as 501C3. In order to be 501C3 you have to fill out a long application and go through the process. But let the government do what they want. We don't need to worry about it.

 

[ktn4eg]

BTW, for those who wish to learn of a few of LBJ's other fellow classmates who (shall we say) didn't do too well on the workshop requirements of Political Ethics 101 [a REAL oxymoron if ever there was one!], check out the 55 + pages of the list of politicians who got in trouble or disgrace (read the intro as well) at

http://www.politicalgraveyard.com

This website is a treasure trove for political historians.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Pastor Larry, one of the bad things about posting on threads.....and this may be the case, you cant always be sure of one's attitude and/or emotional state of mind when reading a post. I do get a sense of a "haughty/don't confuse me with the facts" attitude when I read your responses on this thread. I pray that is not correct.
If I have confused anyone by running the 501-c-3/tax exemption/not for profit gift all together I have erred and I did not mean to do so.

Here are the facts:
1) The US Supremes have ruled that tax exemption and not for profit gifting is a Government Benefit.
2) A Church that subjects itself to the C-3 status has no Constitutional Safeguards in court. It is by law a business governed by the UCC and is in the same catagory as ALL other C-3's legally.
3) A church that is tax exempt is operating as an Unincorporated Association and is the SAME AS a C-3. It has 501-c-3 status according to the courts and the IRS.
4) Any pastor that deals with political platform information whether it be moral/scriptural principle is INVOLVED in politics whether you like it or not.

These points do not require a college education to understand. They are the facts as sure as there is a sun and a moon. To deny them only makes one look either very very inadequate intellectually or very childish.
Thanks ----Bart

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bart, there is nothing at all like what you suggest in my attitude. I do know very well what the situation is what tax exemption and political involvement. I would encourage you to look more into it. You are incorrect on the issue of speaking to biblical issues that may happen to be political issues. They are first and foremost biblical issues and do not fall under the issue of political speech.

To call those who disagree with you very very inadequate intellectually or very childish is unfortunate. Surely you can do better than that. You start off by addressing what may be a haughty/don't confuse me with the facts attitude and then post something like that? Inconsistent to say the least.

Accept the fact that biblical issues are always first and foremost biblical issues. They are only secondarily political issues.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

A pastor of a 501-c-3 church is prohibited from endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. That is a government restriction on his preaching. You can't get around that fact.

You may say that he shouldn't do it anyway, and I agree. But he also shouldn't preach Batismal Regeneration...but we would be rightly horrified at a law prohibiting it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If preaching is rightly defined as the proclamation of the word of God, how is prohibition from endorsing a candidate a government restriction on preaching?

 

[Alcott]

Because if a bunch of feds can restrict 'preaching' about one subject on grounds that it does not qualify as preaching, they can do that in the near or distant future about other subjects.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But the point, Alcott, is that endorsing a political candidate is not preaching at all. A prohibition on endorsing a politcal candidate is not a restriction on preaching. Preaching is properly defined as the proclamation of the word of God.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

My point is that it puts the feds in the position of restricting what a pastor can say from the pulpit. Not good...even if you disagree, as I do, with pulpit endorsements.