IRS crackdown on campaigning churches

I'm curious how the Unitarians get away with what they do out here. They are a major hotbed of Democratic Party activism on the Left Coast (and I imagine elsewhere.) Not that I really consider them a "Church" personally though.

 

My point is that because they are tax exempt it is incorrect to say that they are funded by the government. The government hasnt given them any money. They are not funded in any way by the government.

 

Actually, isn't keeping churches out of politics, maintaining separation of church and state? And as long as the government gives any person or corporation a break on taxes, it's a handout.

Bottom line?

If you take a handout from Uncle Sugar, he's going to tell you how to run your affairs.

If you don't like it, don't ask for a handout. With government money comes government control

 

Are politics and state one and the same thing?

Okay, if you've raised kids, it wasn't by your income, but by government handouts-- that exemption for each of them.

Then your kids are not your responbility to raise as you see fit, but since the government gives you a handout for their existence, they are the government's affairs; which means, for one thing, you cannot teach them a religiion or faith, as a public school teacher cannot. Or, do you take that public money ["handout"'] to assist in teaching them such, unconstitutionally? If tax exemption is equal to direct funding, there would be no difference.

These silly fine lines do not make good sense. An individual can support a candidate for public office, and can join with others to do so; but mention such an idea in one of the common meeting places of like-minded people-- churches-- and these same people owe the government money for taking such a position.

And how is the government going to "crack down" on church politicking without entanglement? It is all but inevitable what they mean is they intend to use spies to attend church meetings and read their published literature, which serves to make church members suspicious of visitors or anyone who requests more information about a church than can be found out just by experiencing the cordiality.

 

I saw a program on this the other night and StefanM is correct! The Federal Government is not infringing upon any Constitutional "rights" of the Church. As they are free to endorse whatever candidate they choose. However, if they do so they then jeopardize their tax exempt status. Which is a "privilege" as the Government see's it.


The Church and Pastor are free to speak upon any issue(freedom of speech). They can also instruct the congregation to vote their conscience. Nothing was said whether they could endorse a particular party though.

They noted, at election times, the ACLU sends out letters to Churches all across the Nation. Using legalistic terminology to imply issues, such as gay marriage/abortion etc, cannot be brought up, which is false. These notices are simply meant to confuse and intimidate Churches and Pastors. So they will avoid it all together.



Personally, I think a Pastor should feel incumbent to speak upon the issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be interested in knowing how the Supreme Court would see it. As indeed, it is a tool the Government or elected officials, could use in order to regulate speech. Also, for the life of me, I do not understand how the ACLU operates with impunity? Somebody should sue them for a change!

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 4:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Closed per previous warning. LE