Pastor Accused of Politics From Pulpit

The inconsistancy of this thing does bother me - I have to admit.

I don't think organisations invovled in politics should be tax exeempt- but that should apply to ALL sides.

 

"However, no such letter is sent to African-American churches or to liberal mainline denominational churches. Traditionally, the Democratic candidates speak in many African-American churches during their presidential campaigns."

How would they know?

Are there spies monitoring the mail of African-American churches? Has he polled the "liberal mainline" denominational churches? Is the warning sent to churches which have been sanctioned previously and those others don't qualify?

Seriously, how would they know what letters are sent to which churches?

Besides, the Americans United can send letters to those they believe are violating the law - they are a private organization.

 

It's not censorship. If a person at a pulpit wants to spend his time primarily discussing politics, and be tax exempt, all he has to do is file 501c3 as a not-for-profit political charitable organization.

Now, to the case in point, it's unlikely that this pastor violated any IRS rules. It's simply a case of Americans United for Separation of Church and State making a complant to the IRS. Most church-related complaints made to the IRS are dismissed for lack of merit.

 

Tax-exemption is a way of guaranteeing that the 1st amendment's provision of free expression of religion not be abridged. The governement has no place regulating the speech of religious institutions. I understand the fears of those who believe that some churches, mosques, or synagogues will become arms of political parties. But sorry folks: you can't have a free society and keep the thought police constantly monitoring every word and deed of a religious entity.

 

It's not censorship. If a person at a pulpit wants to spend his time primarily discussing politics, and be tax exempt, all he has to do is file 501c3 as a not-for-profit political charitable organization. </font>[/QUOTE]But here's the kicker Johnv: what is "discussing politics" and what isn't? I'm not comfortable with this kind of Big Brother-esque speech regulation.

 

My own rule of thumb is if a pastor endorses a candidate or if he coerces the congregation to vote for a certain candidate, or if he spends a significant amount of time "pushing" a certain political agenda, then IMO the church would not be operating as a church, but as a political organization.

As I said in my earlier post, it's unlikely that the pastor discussed in the OP violated any IRS rules. It's simply a case of Americans United for Separation of Church and State making a complant to the IRS. Most church-related complaints made to the IRS are dismissed for lack of merit.

 

Perhaps teaching that homosexuality is wrong would be a religious teaching, but advocating legal reprisals against homosexuals would be political campaigning.

 

What are the seminaries "raisin'" nowadays??? CandyStripers??? Men so weak they can't stand up to "Puff the Magic Dragon"---much less take on the Dragon from Hell!!

I'm glad that Ronnie Floyd eats gunpowder instead of Jello!!

 

Preaching against, for example, homosexuality, is just fine for a preacher to do, if he's so moved. He can even say that it's his opinion that this and that measure or law is bad legislation. The line gets drawn when a preacher says vote 'yes' on this initiative or 'no' on that one. The preacher is free to tell us how to act. However, the line should be drawn when he tells us how to vote.

 

The line gets drawn when a preacher says vote 'yes' on this initiative or 'no' on that one.

That is not true. The IRS code does not disallow encouragement to vote Yes or No on a referendum [i.e., liquor sales, gambling, recognizing nonmarital 'unions']. The prohibition only applies to candidates and political parties. (and I am not saying I agree with the law as it is)

 

If it weren't for discussion of political matters from the pulpit there would probably never have been a USA nor would there have been a movement to free southern slaves.

If the Bible applies to an issue that happens to be political and the congregation has the power to use their personal political power to have an influence then it is perfectly legitimate in every way for a preacher to speak out.

God's Word is authoritative on every matter... including our political opinions and votes.

 

Says who John?
It's unbelievable to me that a pastor can't bring in a decent Christian running for office and allow them to have a word in the word, and even outright state "this candidate believes in the same God we do, is a born again Christian, and as your pastor I will be voting for this person instead of the candidate that stands against what we as a church believe in".
I'd have no problem with him encouraging others to do likewise. It is not an aberrance from teaching people about Christ, it is a continuation of teaching people about a complete Christian lifestyle, which INCLUDES standing up for and supporting other Christians.
For a government to say that a pastor doing this is wrong really burns me.
I WANT to know the opinions and thoughts of other Christians on the candidates. I want the benefit of my pastors years of service to God and years of seeing candidates come and go, to be able to hear his reasoning and his advice when it comes to these things.
Sure it's political talk. Everything's political. Christianity itself can be considered part of politics.
For the government to come in and say that a church must pay tithes to the government for mentioning politics in their private services is a very strange sounding thing to me.
Gina

 

You can make a pretty strong case against much of economic liberalism based on the parables Jesus chose. He pretty well affirmed property ownership. For instance, he pretty much cans the notion that a worker that knows what his wage is when he starts has some "right" to demand more later. At no point that I am aware of does Jesus ever say that the poor are "entitled" to benefits paid for by taxing the rich.

Also in a democracy, a legitimate question to ask is this: Is it morally right for us to vote for government to do something as our proxy that we don't have the right to do for ourselves. For instance, if it is morally wrong for me to use force to take money from someone richer than me to pay for my healthcare, how does it somehow become moral for me to vote for the gov't to take the money for me? The answer is- it doesn't become moral. It is just as wrong to attempt to vote myself wealth that I didn't earn but someone else did as it is for me to take a gun to their house and demand his wealth.

The NT also teaches it is the church, not the government, that should care for the poor. Millions of evangelism opportunities have been lost because the poor go to a new god, the government program, to get their sustainance.

 

Nope. The media would gloss right over it just like they do when liberals go into black urban churches every election cycle.

 

Really Galatian??? I guess you're appalled when Democrats go into black churches to make political speeches then, huh?

It probably even caused you not to vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore...no?

 

Me. That's why I said "IMO".

Well, let's see. Two words there: Carter and Bush. You won't get a concensus on this board that the aforementioned applies to them, or, for that matter, anyone else who's ever run for office.

However, as a Baptist and an American, I value very highly the concept of religious liberty. I think that, when a pastor does what you're inferring, he's prying into an individual's religious liberty. Again, jjust my $.02.

Again, just my two cents, when it comes to, say, the elected post of Sheriff, I'd rather vote for a Jewish atheist who is tough on crime over an Evangelican Christian who can't use "sentence" in a sentence. I'd rather have a Muslim City Clerk who is experienced at record keeping over a Baptist from my own church who can't balance his/her own checkbook. So, you see, one's salvific state does not automatically make one competent for the job. I'm born again, but would make a lousy county controller, because I lack the skills.

The Government isn't saying that. The government says that an organization that campaigns is a political charity, and hence must file a 501c3 as a political charity, in order to be tax exempt. A house of worship is not required to file for tax examption, so long as it operated like a house of worship (holds religious services, etc). When a house of worship operates outside what a reasonable person expects in a house of worship, it must file for 501c3 in the area it's operating in order to retain a tax exempt status. It's not a matter of government interference, it's a matter of the individual (you and me) knowing what an organization's primary purpose is. Otherwise, would you like it if the Democratic or Republican parties simply said "we're churches", and thus enjoy tax exempt status carte blance??

Knowing and being told whom/what to vote for are two separate issues.

Do you really think that service to God makes you a better equipped voter? Or chef? Or parking attendant? Or waiter? Or boat captain? No, it only makes you a better equipped to serve God.

Religion can be considered part of sports, too, but the pulpit is no place to tell people they MUST root for the Yankees in the World Series.

That's a stretch, methinks. I don't want to go to political rallys in Sunday mornings. I want to gop to church.

 

Barbarian observes:
A preacher can preach whatever he wants. But if he dabbles in politics from the pulpit, he loses his tax exemption, because tax-exempt organizations are forbidden to engage in politics.

He has the right to organize political rallies in his sanctuary, if he wants. He just can't get a handout from tax money to do it.

And that's how it should be.

Absolutely.

If they endorse specific candidates or tell people how to vote, you bet. And it happens with the democrat wing of the demopublicans too.

And churches that tolerate it should lose their tax-exempt status. I'm glad we agree. You do agree that should happen in both cases, right?

I wouldn't say that you shouldn't vote for Bush because republicans have been trying to use churches as political organizations. Now, if Bush spoke during a church service and told people how to vote, then I'd say that was another reason vote against him.

But there are plenty of other, more serious reasons.