Comments for: “Pulpit Plot: ADF Schemes To Test Tax-Law Limits On Church Partisanship”

Why does the ADF hate America and our Constitution?

Since organized religion has, in many ways, become a major commercial enterprise in the USA, perhaps it’s time churches were given the option: Tax exempt, or tax levied?

The rules for the two categories could be clearly written by the IRS, and the RR could choose to pay their way to the honest route.

It’s about time!!
When are you people going to learn that you can not silence the church? It isn’t going to happen. We pastors have had enough of groups like yours whining and sticking your noses where they don’t belong! Your intimidation tactics are getting old. We will stand together and do what is right for the church.
We are taking back our first amendment rights. Get used to it, the time is now!
My pulpit will not be silenced.

I have a very simple solution for people like “Pastor Gary” — PAY TAXES and you can endorse anyone you want!

Laura says:

I have a very simple solution for people like “Pastor Gary” — PAY TAXES and you can endorse anyone you want!

The first amendment gives me freedom of speech , period. That is constitutional. The constitution also protects my church from the government.

So now Gary Z is “Pastor Gary”. Doesn’t matter what you call yourself, you still are not above the law. If you want the tax exemption you have to play by the rules. If you want to preach politics, you have to pay taxes. The constitution does not give your church the right to ignore, disregard, or hold yourself to a “higher law” than the laws of the land. News flash, Gary…You are not special!

The ADF is being less than honest in their promotion of their “initiative”.

They state “Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment.”

There are two inaccurices here. The first, and most fundimental, is that speaking out about biblical values is most definitly allowed under the law and the IRS does not intimidate anyone based on issue advocacy. So, once again, the religious right is crying wolf and pretending, without cause, to be marters.

The second is that revokation of tax exempt status is NOT a punishment. Tax exemption is NOT a right, it is a privelege, and if you don’t qualify you have no reason to feel punished.

Has anyone from the “Evangelical Manifesto” group, who are concerned about the reputation of Evangelicals being ruined by militent fundies, bothered to explain this to them? Maby they would listen to one of their own.

More balony from AFD: “That year, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson amended the tax code to add the threat of IRS action against churches…”

A senator cannot “amend the tax code”!!! It takes both houses of congress AND the president’s signiture to do so! This wasn’t one senator’s personal decision. This was the decision of the American people through their duly elected represntitives.

The ADL has ACLU envy… they want to “legislate from the bench.” But, unlike the ACLU, they haven’t a clue.

News flash Elizabeth!!
I’m protected by the first amendment.
It’s called freedom of speech.
And that’s exactly what I get Every day. Not just on Sunday!!!!

Pastor Gary - You do have freedom of speech, period. The constitution does protect your church from the government.

That is in the first amendment. So, which amendment is it that provides you with the right to renege on paying your taxes?

There are a lot of tax chiselers and other cheats who will want to know.

Alan,
I’m not reneging. I’m tax exempt. Remember?
I’m tax exempt AND I have freedom of speech!
The Constitution will outweigh the IRS.
This IS a great country.

Nope. Sorry. Tax exemption is a privelege reserved for organizations that obey the rules. If you want a privelige you will have to play be the rules.

By the way, if you are planning on joining the ADF’s fiasco, let us know where you will be preaching on Sept. 28. That will make it easier for us to report you.

Alan,
We’ll see.
I really don’t think that your groups intimidation is going to scare away anyone.
The time has come. I believe that the response from pastors will awesome!
Bring it on!!

A pulpit endorsement communicates more information than just “you should vote for X.”

Most candidates hold views that are antithetical to some aspects of church teaching (whatever church). By endorsing a candidate, the church also endorsing those values. Even if that’s not the intention, it sure appears that way to the congregation.

It sends another message: if your political views differ from mine, you are neither a true Christian nor a bona fide member of the church community. This violates Paul’s teaching that Christians should focus on what unites them and avoid needless divisive arguments. It’s a great way to alienate people from the church.

Pastors who are genuinely concerned about leading people to Jesus will reject such tactics, regardless of legalities.

Gary, you can’t have it both ways. Period. The rules apply to even you, not matter how special you have deluded yourself into thinking you are. Sanctimonious theocrat is still the perfect title for you.

Elizabeth,
I DO have it both ways. The constitution guarantees me free speech and the government is overstepping it’s bounds when it tells me what I can and cannot preach.
This initiative is LONG overdue.
Thanks for the title!!

Ned asked:

“Why does the ADF hate America and our Constitution?”

Yes and no. They only want it to control (or rewrite/reinterpret) what it says so that they control the reins of power and everyone else will do their bidding. That’s what theocracy is all about, and they’re dead set on achieving that in this country (ironically no different than bin Laden wants to create an Islamic state). They consider themselves above the law and untouchable, but run behind their god’s skirts when some contradicts them claiming holy immunity.

Pastor Gary says:
“We are taking back our first amendment rights. Get used to it, the time is now!”

Your church, as a tax free entity, indirectly increases the tax liability for the rest of us. IE. My tax dollars have to pay for the infrastructure your church utilizes. For you to use my tax dollars to endorse political affiliations from the pulpit dispels my first amendment rights.

Who is stealing from whom?

Michael,
The Constitution of the United States gives me FREE SPEECH and PROTECTION!!!!!
The church gives back to the community and the world with local and foreign missions.
We give of ourselves EVERY DAY!!
No one is stealing from you.

Pastor Gary,

As long as you are using your tax exempt status for those purposes, you are correct.

When you use tax free funds to endorse SPECIFIC candidates which I may or may not endorse, you are stealing. You are taking my tax dollars to support your personal beliefs.

Michael,
I am correct on both counts.
The Constitution protects us.
The Pulpit Initiative will show all.
See ya on Sept, 28th.

Gary, apparently you suffer from dementia. Get some Prozac.

Elizabeth,
Your personal attacks speak volumes about you are!!
Is that how you always react when you have nothing intelligent to say?? Because that’s what I see.

Pastor Gary says:

“Is that how you always react when you have nothing intelligent to say??”

As if anything YOU say at all is intelligent. The pot calling the kettle black!

From your comments you show yourself to be nothing but a big baby, always whining and ranting rather than providing any cogent argument.

And apparently you like to compensate yourself for your unhappy existence by comforting yourself that you are one of God’s special people.

Pastor Gary–

Yes, as an individual, you do have the right to freedom of speech. But when you speak from the pulpit, you are representing your church and are no longer speaking for yourself. Tax-exempt organizations, specifically tax-exempt religious organizations, are also exempt from freedom of speech under current laws. They voluntarily gave up that right when they became a tax-exempt organizations. That is one of the stipulations of being a tax-exempt religious organization. You want to endorse a political candidate, to express your “free speech?” Fine, just give up your tax-exempt status.

Oh brother!!!!!!!!

Pastor Gary: Where is your church located? What is it called?

I might be able to send out an email or two to boost your Sunday attendance. Many people would find your sermon on which political leaders to vote for quite interesting.

You’re not intimidated, are you? After all, you just said that you are protected by the constitution.

Gary blithered: “The Constitution of the United States gives me FREE SPEECH and PROTECTION!!!!!”

Yep, all those exclamation points and capital letters must make it true…. (yawn)

The Constitution does guarantee you freedom of speech so you can make a fool of yourself. But it does not protect you in any way from the consequences of breaking the law, even if you hide behind the robe of Jesus.

If I were to foolishly decide that my religion allowed me to kill, the Constitution would not protect me from punishment. Paul Hill and James Kopp found that out the hard way. Tax law is no different. Play by the rules or render unto Caesar.

I see Gary is back and figuratively stomping his foot in capital letters. Please notice how Gary does not address any issues, but merely insists he is right. He reacts to each logical response with “I’m right and you are wrong”. He entirely overlooked Dave C’s very thoughtful post and responded with what appeared to be figurative eye-rolling to Karl’s very logical post.

Gary, please take the time to review your behavior. Then ask yourself why people treat you as if you are obnoxious and divisive. You are proving all of the stereotypes of religious extremism to be true. If that is your aim, please continue. It will serve to further strengthen the negative image of evangelicals in America, as will the defiant behavior advised by the ADF.

Gary seems to be living in a fantasy world where facts not only don’t matter, they are not allowed to intrude at all. The facts are:

The Constitution makes no references to tax exemptions. Tax exempt status is set by statutory law. As far as the Constitution is concerned, all tax exemptions could be eliminated tomorrow.

Religious organizations are not tax exempt because they are religious (that would be a violation of the establishment cause); they are tax exempt because they are non-profit, non-politcal organizations.

Ergo-If a religious organization starts acting like a political organization, it loses its tax exempt status.

I personally applaud the RR for its patriotic effort to reduce the deficit by having its affiliated churches pay taxes.

To use the expression that is used a lot where I work, I think Gary is “unclear on the concept.”

Unfortunately for Gary, the judiciary is and has been very clear on the concept. The state’s power to levee taxes has been very jealously guarded by all branches of government, and they will not take this challenge lightly.

Gary, seriously, if you are planning civil disobedience, be sure to let us know so those in the area can show up. I might drop if its within driving distance.

My suggestion would be not to do an in-your-face to the IRS (though for a lot of reasons that would be fun), but just be creative. For example, if the presidential election does come down to Obama v. McCain, preach or write articles using the Chuck Connors character, Lucas McCain, from The Rifleman, make him out a hero in Desert Storm over Saddam Hussein, mentioning several times Hussein’s evil– gassing the Kurds and Shiites, invasions, missiles– as metaphors for the issues, and come back with, “Is the cost of gas going to choke us– Hussein is its middle name… It’s high noon, so Lucas, get your rifle ready and we’ll supply your ammo…”

Gary wrote: See ya on Sept, 28th.

Gary, I can’t see you on Sept 28th unless I know the name and address of your church. Please provide that information.

Or are you too chicken? Jesus doesn’t like cowards, Gary. Do you have the balls to stand by your beliefs and identify yourself and your church?

I bet you don’t. (Buk buk bwaaaack!!)

Matt #1

Gary, I’m curious to know - how many people are in your congregation, and do they all stamp their feet and act like two year olds?

Alan, you are spot on - Gary just does not get the concept. It is absolutely senseless to even attempt to discuss matters with him. (I do agree with Elizabeth, though, he appears to need some Prozac, or other comparable medication.)

T Halburtt, thank you for reiterating once again, for Pastor Gary, what it is that qualifies an organization for tax exempt status.

Oy, Matt…after I just went and reminded Gary what a child he looks like, you go and do a Buk buk bwaaaack!!

Please.

While the previous comments have been entertaining, I do actually have a comment on the parent article.

Everybody is talking about “endorsement.” Even the article brings up the prior endorsement case. That’s not what the ADF is talking about. They want to talk openly about their own values and the values of the candidates–something that is “borderline” or over the line, depending on your take on the IRS codes.

To some, that might seem like a tacit endorsement, but as the ADF notes, other non-religious organizations are allowed to do the same thing.

So long as tax-exemption is offered to a variety of organizations, it must be offered without discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. THAT is the primary issue. It’s not that churches want something special; they just want the same thing that the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State gets–tax free donations. Just as the AU talks about church/state issues with respect to candidates, churches want to be able to talk about the values that matter to THEM, with respect to political candidates.

It’s not about being special; it’s about not being discriminated against BECAUSE of religious beliefs.

AU hasn’t told a single contributor form whom they should vote. As a matter of fact, I can’t recall a single post about any political candidate at all. Your argument is invalid, JD.

Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations[citation needed]) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that “no substantial part” of a public charity’s activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the “expenditure” test) or more (under the “substantial part” test) per year on lobbying. [6]

All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code. Another example is the The American Foreign Policy Council is a strong pro-Israel lobbyist organization operating under this code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)

J says:

“preach or write articles using the Chuck Connors character, Lucas McCain, from The Rifleman, make him out a hero in Desert Storm over Saddam Hussein, mentioning several times Hussein’s evil”

In other words, J says, don’t argue about any real issues or any of the candidates’ real positions or real character. Use the same old, same old Lee Atwater and Karl Rove style character assassination, as Republicans, conservatives, and the corporate media have been doing at least since 1988, and especially since Bush II.

J, you really don’t have anything better to offer or suggest??

Uh, yes. I’d suggest: Don’t vote for that socialist whose constitution lacks a 2nd and 10th amendment. But we’re discussing how (if at all) public issues may be discussed in 501.c.3 setting.

“J, you really don’t have anything better to offer or suggest??”

I presume my ‘better offer’ is slowly making its way thorugh the filter at this time.

MikeH - don’t believe him - whatever is stuck in moderation could hardly qualify as a “better offer.”

The only offer, J, is cut and dry, no politicking from the pulpit…or politic all you want and give up the 501(c)3 status.

“AU hasn’t told a single contributor form whom they should vote.”
-That’s neither what I said nor what other 501(c)3s do or want. Reread my post.

“As a matter of fact, I can’t recall a single post about any political candidate at all.”
-You’re kidding, right? Try a site search for Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc. You’ll get them all.

“Your argument is invalid, JD.”
-Oh. Well, with that well supported retort, I guess I give up.

Next time a fundie says it’s only atheists who “believe” in evolution, show them this:

Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Darwinism for Catholics

“Baptist minister and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee doesn’t believe that he is descended from primates, but if an article in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano is any indication, Pope Benedict XVI may think otherwise.”

Gary, you can talk about evolution and atheism, and abortion, and homosexuality ’til you turn blue and die, on your time, and your congregations’s dime. It’s free speech. Just don’t try and tell them which chad to leave hanging. I must admit, Gary, I could sit still in your church for about 15 seconds based on, well, based on you.

I’d like to come with others and hear you on Sept. 28th oh, mighty conveyor of the Good News and the official fundie voting stance. So where is that you’ll be holding your sermon? You know, even if I don’t attend your sermon, I’ll be attending church. I’ll consider it my civic duty, OK? Perhaps, they’ll convert me, Gary, or perhaps I’ll report them. We’ll see.

OK, JD, we have indeed discussed Huckabee. He’s a radical fundamentalist hoping to amend the Constitution so that God is in charge of the country. Obama? Indeed, we discussed the ruckus with Rev. Wright’s inflammatory remarks. We also have b**ched about how the media won’t acknowledge that McCain refuses to denounce the radical fundamentalist Hagee. Bush? Please we won’t go there, OK? I’ll make sure my kids remember, in case the history books gloss the photo.

Now I’ll send you a can of green beans and tell you who to vote for. Can I file for a tax exemption? Show me the political endorsements of Americans United for Church and State.

“Show me the political endorsements of Americans United for Church and State.”
-See? You’re bringing up endorsements again. You obviously didn’t read my post. This has nothing to do with endorsements.

Your argument is still invalid. 501(c)3’s can talk about issues, and candidates in a biased way. (Fundie churches have a hard time with this part.) They cannot endorse.

“They want to talk openly about their own values and the values of the candidates–something that is “borderline” or over the line, depending on your take on the IRS codes.”

Back it up. Family Research Council, an arm of Focus of the Family, and now Pat Robertson’s arm, ADF, is directly urging pastors, to challenge the IRS - tax laws that are pretty explicit in guidelines. What borderline are they on, and in what ways do they wish to cross it? They already talk about issues, values, and politicians. They want to endorse, and tell their congregants for whom to vote.

I will support and urge suspension of tax aid while they fight their case in court. I will also be in touch with my local ACLU to see what they think, and to offer my support.

What is your understanding of the tax laws for 501(c)3’s, JD?

I read your post, JD. You imply that an endorsement that may come about tacitly, somehow lessens the effect. Please specify which other non-profits are engaging in partisan politics and tacit or explicit endorsement. That is very much what it’s about.

JD says: Everybody is talking about “endorsement.” Even the article brings up the prior endorsement case. That’s not what the ADF is talking about. They want to talk openly about their own values and the values of the candidates–something that is “borderline” or over the line, depending on your take on the IRS codes.

AU says: According to today’s Wall Street Journal, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is conspiring with a handful of scofflaw clergy to defy the tax-law ban on candidate endorsements by tax-exempt groups. On Sept. 28, these ministers plan to use their pulpits to preach about candidates and spark a showdown.

Wall St. Journal says:
May 9, 2008; Page A5

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

Gee, JD, I’m confused, can you help me understand how certain fundies aren’t thinking about endorsement in violation of the rules?

Do I really need to explain to you what you already claim to believe?

From the AU website:
“Religious leaders may take stands on political issues…but the church should not compare the candidates’ positions to the church’s preferred position on issues.”
An example from the IRS:
“Preparing or distributing a voter guide may violate the prohibition against political campaign intervention if the guide focuses on a single issue or narrow range of issues.”

Notice it says “a narrow range of issues.” So if the “range of issues” is limited to, say, the few strong beliefs of a particular faith group, it would be illegal.

Thus, they cannot say “as [insert religious faith group], we believe THIS, while Candidate X believes THIS, and Y believes THIS.” Yet, the AU goes on and on about church state entanglement, and then points out that certain candidates are involved with “religious right” groups that they are in opposition with.

This is what the ADF says it wants to do:
“openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit.”

It has nothing to do with endorsement, and everything to do with issues–which they may, or may not, be allowed to talk about with respect to political candidates, depending on how you interpret the IRS rules.

The ADF’s point is that even if they ARE allowed to talk about them, the AU has made them so gun-shy that they don’t. So if no one challenges them on Sep 28th, they’ll be able to prove to everyone else that they really CAN “talk about the issues” without being legally liable. If they are contested, they’ll have a court case to air it out.

The mere threat of an IRS investigation–even when the threat is unfounded–has led some churches to “overly restrict” themselves. The ADF is seeking to reverse that improper influence.

If what YOU say is right, the AU has nothing to worry about. But they seem concerned, so either you’re wrong, or they are.

“Pulpit partisanship would also bitterly divide many congregations and distract attention from the spiritual and charitable purposes that draw them together in the first place.”

How rich is this? The secularists at the AU are also experts on Church unity. Sorry folks. You’re out of your element. Stick with what you know.

As a free speech advocate who despises theocrats like Gary Z., I still believe he and his church have the reserved right to free speech. I think the answer here is to rescind tax exemptions for all churches by implementing the FairTax and doing away with all income and business income taxes. The FairTax would supplant those taxes with a consumption tax.

If everyone paid a consumption tax on the goods and services they procured, including entities that are now tax-exempt, we’d be much more in line with our founding constitutional ideals on both speech and taxes.

What makes me shudder however is the fact that we are a populace that continues to increase its delusional beliefs held by people like Gary Z relative to the rest of the civilized world, people like Gary Z. or more in line with Saudi Arabians than the Japanese or Northern Europeans. People like him haven’t even progressed to enlightenment values while the rest of the civilized world marches beyond those ideals toward singularity given the advent of improved access to knowledge via the Internet.

You would think the incompetency of Bush 43 would make people question the failed ideology of conservatism and to a degree, I think it has - though not enough. Let Gary Z. get hoisted on his own picard just like our Dear President.

This is what the ADF says it wants to do:
“openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit.”

So what if a pastor said this…
“Candidate X supports traditional families. He supports a child’s right to a wonderful life, while candidate Y thinks killing innocent little babies is a good thing. Candidate X is a defender of marriage. Candidate Y wants to destroy civilization by backing the homosexual agenda. I urge you to consider this during the election.”

This is the kind of “open discussion” the ADF wants. Sorry, but it’s the same thing as an endorsement.

Dave C - What you describe sounds just like the “voters guides” that were distributed in church by the RR in the past. “Voters guides” is in scare quotes because the IRS found them to be biased and nothing more than endorsements. It sounds like this ground has already been covered.

According to the site, if you want to participate you have to work with the ADF to come up with a sermon that will support their test case.

We don’t know what they are up to, but it sounds like they might try to apply “bibical values” in an “impartial way” to both cadidates. In which case they may try to avoid outright endorsement and make that the basis of their case. But if that is already permited, it wouldn’t make a good test case. They wouldn’t even be called on it. To further their agenda there has to be a clear violation of the current standards.

As far as other organizations having rights that charitable organizations do not, so what? They may be not-for-profit, but they aren’t charitable organizations. Their contributors can’t take a tax deduction for making a contribution. The churches that want to fall into that category can do so by reorganizing or by starting sister organizations that do.

Maybe that is what the ADF should recomend.

“We don’t know what they are up to, but it sounds like they might try to apply “bibical values” in an “impartial way” to both cadidates. In which case they may try to avoid outright endorsement and make that the basis of their case.”
-That’s the most rational thing anyone has said on this page.

“But if that is already permited, it wouldn’t make a good test case.”
-But that’s where the ambiguity lies. The AU has already framed this as “intervening in politics,” even though they haven’t seen any actions or heard any sermons. THAT is what the ADF is trying to point out. If they can get a dozen churches to speak on the “issues” and NOT get a complaint, then they’ll have “proof” that churches can do so without fear of retribution.

“So what if a pastor said this…
“Candidate X …I urge you to consider this during the election.””
-The AU does this too, you know. “Group X is a Rabid Religious Right organization that wants to install Christianity as an official religion..etc…etc. By the way, Candidate/Office Holder X held a private and cordial meeting with said group the other day….” The AU is a 501(c)3 too, you know, just like a church, and they have to follow the same rules.

Folk like Pastor Gary only serve to reveal how false their god is. If they really believed he was omnipotent, they would get off the government teat, and trust their god to supply all their needs.

But they don’t because he isn’t.

So for their simple minds, I’ll say this: As long as you are stealing tax money from me, I have every right to stick my nose and loud mouth into your hypocritical business.

JD, It doesn’t matter how AU has framed the issue, what matters is how the IRS standards are applyed by the IRS. If the purpose of this initiative is to show that pastors can follow the IRS standards and not be bothered by the IRS - so what?

If they really want to end up in court and change the standards, then they have to violate them in the eys of the IRS, not the AU.

If they just follow the AU’s practice and do what they are allowed to do, so what?

jomo writes: “How rich is this? The secularists at the AU are also experts on church unity. You’re out of your element. Stick with what you know.

The second sentence of the above clearly implies that all AU members are “secularists”-but the leading spokesman for AU, Barry Lynn, is an ordained minister. Oh, I forgot, if one disagrees in any way with Religious Right, one is a “secularist”. How could I forget?

Very easily, I’m sure.

Good luck to the ADF.

Once again Pop stays withing the bounds of a “civil public square”. This might be a trend!

Pastor Gary says:
Laura says:
I have a very simple solution for people like “Pastor Gary” — PAY TAXES and you can endorse anyone you want!
The first amendment gives me freedom of speech , period. That is constitutional. The constitution also protects my church from the government.

dear pastor gary. the first amendment also gives “me” the right to freedom from “your” superstition. i pay my taxes to preserve that freedom. just quite whining pard, pay your taxes and you can support any theocracy you want. it’s the law. get used to it. better yet change your superstition to one of the muslim faiths and move to one of their theocratical countries. then you’ll feel right at home.

Sorry this took so long. I had a busy weekend.

Jax, the capitalizations and exclamations you referred to were for emphasis only. I guess that you took them the wrong way.

T. Hurlbutt, To correct you, I believe that I have referred to the Constitution of the United States in my posts. The first ammendment is fact.

Fact
I have the right to preach scriptural truth as it relates to candidates. This is not an endorsement.
Here are some others,(taken from ADF’s The Pulpit Initiative White Paper), to chew on.

Fact
Prohibiting a Pastor’s Sermon Either for or Against Candidates Violates the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The 1954 amendment, when used to restrict speech from the pulpit of a church, violates
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The restriction excessively entangles the
government with religion, violates a church’s right to free exercise of religion, and violates a
church’s right to free speech.

Fact
Establishment Clause
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion….” One principle of the Establishment Clause is that
the government must not become excessively entangled with religious affairs.
The 1954 amendment is unconstitutional because its enforcement requires excessive
entanglement with the church. First, the 1954 amendment requires that the government analyze
and parse religious speech, which the government is not constitutionally competent to do.
Second, the prohibition forces the government to monitor not just religious speech about
candidates’ qualifications, but even religious speech about moral issues as well.

Fact
Free Speech Clause
The Johnson amendment also violates the Free Speech Clause. The amendment is a
“content-based” restriction on speech, which means that it discriminates against certain speech
solely based on the content of the expression. In the context of the 1954 amendment, the IRS
obviously must examine a pastor’s sermon to determine whether or not it violates the
amendment.

Fact
Some people have argued that speech about candidates must be suppressed for tax-exempt
groups because the exemption functions as a subsidy. That, however, is poor reasoning. There
are at least six clear differences between exemptions and subsidies: (1) in a tax exemption no
money changes hands between the government and the organization; (2) a tax exemption does
not provide one cent to an organization which relies solely on contributions; (3) the amount of a
subsidy is determined by the government whereas an exemption is “open-ended;” (4) in a tax
exemption, there is no periodic battle by the organization to increase or maintain the amount of
money it receives as there would be with a subsidy; (5) a tax exemption is driven by the private
choice of the taxpayer, while subsidies are driven by government policy considerations; and (6) a
tax exemption does not convert a private group into an arm of the government whereas extensive
subsidies might. Therefore, granting a tax exemption does not amount to subsidizing the speech
of tax-exempt groups.

Fact
The Johnson amendment is also unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause as an
“unconstitutional condition” on tax exemption. While a pastor may preach in a sermon about an
issue, under the Internal Revenue Code he may not support or oppose a candidate. The U.S.
Supreme Court has stated that there is no compelling purpose for the government to extend a
statutory privilege (like tax exemption) only on the condition that the recipient gives up a
fundamental right (like free speech). In fact, the opposite is true. The “exaction of a tax as a
condition to the exercise of the great liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment is . . .
obnoxious . . .”6 “To deny [a tax] exemption to claimants who engage in certain forms of speech
is in effect to penalize them for such speech.”7 The government may argue that the church is
denied nothing because it can support or oppose a candidate and remain tax exempt by forming a
separate 501(c)(4) political organization to speak for it. Such a separate organization, however,
cannot speak for the church itself, so the church’s rights remain violated. When the IRS
conditions tax exemption on a church’s silence about candidates, it has imposed an
unconstitutional condition on the benefit of tax exemption.

Fact
Free Exercise Clause
The prohibition also violates the free exercise of religion. Under the Free Exercise
Clause, laws are closely scrutinized by courts when they discriminate against religion or when
they substantially burden religious exercise and other constitutional rights are also at stake.
First, when the IRS threatens to revoke a church’s tax exempt status for a pastor’s sermon
from the pulpit, it is expressly discriminating against religious speech. Such direct
discrimination, and the prospect of civil or criminal penalties, make the amendment
unconstitutional.
Additionally, because the Johnson 1954 amendment implicates a church’s free exercise
rights and its free speech rights, federal courts will require the government to have a compelling
reason for restricting constitutional rights. As stated previously, the government has no
compelling reason for the restriction. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Fact
Prohibiting a Pastor’s Sermon Either for or Against Political Candidates
Violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires that the government have a compelling reason for passing any law that burdens the exercise of religion. The RFRA binds the federal government and offers a second route to
challenge the lack of a compelling interest for the IRS regulations. The 1954 amendment
substantially burdens a church’s exercise of religion and the government has no compelling
reason for imposing such a burden. Therefore, the amendment violates RFRA.

oh, i should mention that “my” constitution also protects “my” government from “your” church , not to mention protecting your church from government run by any one of the thirty thousand (yes paster, you do know there are thirty thousand + ??)churches different and many hostel to your own, no matter what itis??

RE: Fact: The 1954 amendment is unconstitutional… blah blah blah.

It ain’t a “fact” until it has been tested in court. That’s been done, and it has held up. If ADF wants to try again, OK.

One consequence of allowing a charitable organization, and especially a church, to both engage in partisan politics and hand out tax deductions to contributers is that every political operative in America will suddenly “find religion” and start up a “church.”

The Holy Church of Swift Boat Truth is comming to a store front near you! Praise the Lord!

Chruchs will be the perfered vehicle for this scam, since they have virtually NO reporting requirements. Of course, that would then have to change.

All in all, if the ADF gets its way, it will be bad for the chruch and for religion. It will create the need for a whole new enforcemnent regime and lots of finacial oversight in order to root out phony Swift Boat chruches. That is oversigt that does not now exist.

Allowing the Swift Boat churches to come into being will further tarnish the Evangelical reputation with what the Evangelical Manifesto calls conservative fundimentalist’s sub-Christian behavior.

You might want to re-read Dave C’s thoughtful post above and think about whether or not you really want to go there.

Oh, by the way Gary, there is an easy remedy for the entanglement of religion and goverment in the administration of the tax law… remove chruches from the category of charities. No more tax deduction or exemptions.

Problem solved.

Alan, the first amendment was and is the remedy for entanglement.

Oh, by the way Alan, for all of your groups efforts, from 1954 to the present no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should speak volumns.

RE: no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status

You can believe that if you wish. I guess that is called faith.

So, having faith and assuming you’re right, so what?

Gary, In 1995 the Church at Pierce Creek in NY lost it’s tax exempt status for opposing Bill Clinton.

Gary, you might want to read the appeal court’s ruling in the case mentioned in the article. This is from the 1st Amendment Center sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

http://1stam.umn.edu/archive/f.....stries.txt

Summary:

“Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (First Amendment was not violated by an IRS revocation of a church’s tax exempt status based on the church’s advertisement in a newspaper opposing a presidential candidate)”

I think Pastor Gary has shed some light on the situation.

He has successfully refuted JD’s claim that the ADF is trying merely to clarify the boundaries regarding tax status.

Gary fumed: 6 “To deny [a tax] exemption to claimants who engage in certain forms of speech is in effect to penalize them for such speech.”

Well, then, I want MY tax exemption to stump for/against the candidates I deem worthy of such attention. I am being penalized by having to pay taxes to provide support services (fire, police) to organizations that do nothing but propagate mythological lies.

“One consequence of allowing a charitable organization…to both engage in partisan politics …is that every political operative in America will suddenly …start up a “church.””

Because that’s how it was before 1954, right?

Gary wrote: “See ya on Sept, 28th.”

Gary, why are you ignoring our requests for the name and location of your church? We can’t see you on Sept 28th unless we know where to find you and listen to your fine sermon.

Is it because you’re a coward? All talk? A wimp? Is that what you are, Gary?

Matt #1

(Thank you for leaving out the Buk buk bwaaaack, Matt.)

Pastor Gary, even with gasoline at 3.70 a gallon, I’d be willing to travel a distance just to see you in action. C’mon, don’t you want to be the poster child for ADF? I’d bet I’m not the only one here willing to help you.

Gary says: “Jax, the capitalizations and exclamations you referred to were for emphasis only. I guess that you took them the wrong way.”

Gary, please learn some internet etiquette. All caps is the equivalent of yelling.

Add my name to list of those who’d like to visit Gary’s church on 9/28. But it looks like Gary is just a blowhard, spouting a lot of hot air. Or perhaps he’s actually read about the Church at Pierce Creek and the court’s rulings, and has subsequently decided that obeying the law is the smart choice?

Have you changed your mind, Gary? If not, please be forthcoming about where your church is located. We all really want to be there to see the big show.

Pastor Gary says: “Jax, the capitalizations and exclamations you referred to were for emphasis only. I guess that you took them the wrong way.”

Yes, Jax, because you can’t actually see Gary stomping his foot, waving his arms, foaming at the mouth, and having the ginormous tantrum, he must add internet screeching for emphasis. Don’cha know?

Is anyone else starting to think that perhaps attendance at Gary’s church is limited to the voices in his head?

RE: “One consequence of allowing a charitable organization… Because that’s how it was before 1954, right?

I’m not sure how it was before 1954 - but it wasn’t like it is today.

The Evangelical Church of Swift Boat Truth will be sharing the “good news” during the next knock-down drag-out partisain campagin. But will it be the “good news” of Christ?

daniel rotter writes: The second sentence of the above clearly implies that all AU members are “secularists”-but the leading spokesman for AU, Barry Lynn, is an ordained minister. Oh, I forgot, if one disagrees in any way with Religious Right, one is a “secularist”. How could I forget?

Barry Lynn’s ordination credentials? Big deal. A “ministry” path that transitions from a position as ACLU legal counsel to AU director is much more revealing than denomination credentials.

Right! Big deal! JoMo knows; what’s in the hart of others is for him to say.

Yet more arrogance towards people of faith from those who believe themselves to be holier-than-thou.

Jomo wrote: “A “ministry” path that transitions from a position as ACLU legal counsel to AU director is much more revealing . . .”

What exactly does it reveal, jomo? Tell us. Don’t be a wimp and hide behind vague insipid rhetoric. Tell us exactly what working at the ACLU and AU reveals.

Matt #1

“Tell us exactly what working at the ACLU and AU reveals.”

That such a person pushes certain things:

That criminals have more rights than victims.

That repulsive expression, like accusing a person of incest, is “protected speech,” but a model of a baby in a manger in public park is illegal.

That images of certain pagan gods [e.g., Themis, Eros] belong in public schools and courtrooms, but any reference or portrayal of the god of Hebrews or Christians is forbidden.

That a Latin cross in honor of veterans is illegal on public land, but a different sacred cross of the Zia people is legal on the New Mexico state flag.

That abortion should be entirely legal, but a person can be prosecuted and sued for wrongful death for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry [how can a fetus be both a person who can be wrongfully killed, and a non-person who cannot be killed such that it is a homicide?]

That a public school student can freely enter a talent show and sing a religious song, but in a privilege not free, but dearly earned– a valedictory address– a student can have his or her message censored for religous persuasion.

Enough, at least for now.

In other words, not so much diffeent from any other citizen, religious or not, concerned about human rights and dignity.

J, you are a very bitter person, and, apparently, harboring a lot of rage. I hope you are seeing a qualified therapist and that you can work through at least some of your issues. I wish you the best.

Notice that J didn’t provide any information about whether membership indicated anything about being a Christian or not, which is what Jomo was implying.

Barry Lynn is a Christian, as are many AU members. No evidence to the contrary has been submitted. Thanks for playing.

Matt #1

“J, you are a very bitter person”

Oh gee, how’d you guess? Regardless, that’s no reponse of any substance to my answer to what ‘working for the aclu and au reveals.’

As Matt said, J didn’t provide any reason for questioning the authenticity of an AU or ACLU members religious belifes, which was the question.

But what can be made of the response he did give? It seems that he thinks that AU and ACLU members hold all sorts of self-contradictory positions on a variety of issues.

For instance, he thinks that AU and ACLU officials believe “abortion should be entirely legal, but a person can be prosecuted and sued for wrongful death for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry” and that this reputed position is contradictory.

As far as I know, neither AU nor the ACLU is responsible for or takes any position on the laws or precidents surounding wrongful death. J seems to think that AU and ACLU is behind every preceived injustice or contradiction in our society.

Very strange. And not relevent.

Albatross says:

“MikeH - don’t believe him - whatever is stuck in moderation could hardly qualify as a ‘better offer.’”

Albatross, I see you were absolutely right.

J says:

“Uh, yes. I’d suggest: Don’t vote for that so ci al ist whose constitution lacks a 2nd and 10th amendment.”

As if so ci al ism would be at all worse than what we have had for eight years under Bush and Cheney!

J, you show your true colors as just simply a right wing regressive! You even advocated Lee Atwater and Karl Rove style character assassination tactics in your earlier comment.

Given your love for Bush and McSame (McSame as Bush), your scare tactics about so ci al ism ring very hollow.

And if you love Bush and McSame, as you obviously seem to, then YOUR constitution obviously doesn’t have a 4th and 8th amendment. Wiretapping? Torture? Doing away with habeus corpus? “The constitution is just a _______ piece of paper.”: said by George W. Bush; remember that?

J, you are obviously going to continue to say what you think, but your credibility is very low.

J says:

“But we’re discussing how (if at all) public issues may be discussed in 501.c.3 setting.”

J, YOU were the one who brought up McSame and Obama in your earlier comment.

“For instance, he thinks that AU and ACLU officials believe “abortion should be entirely legal, but a person can be prosecuted and sued for wrongful death for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry” …
As far as I know, neither AU nor the ACLU is responsible for or takes any position on the laws or precidents surounding wrongful death.”

Anyone who takes the position that abortion is not homicide is inevitably saying a fetus is not a human being, as homicide, by legal definition, applies only to human beings. And that inevitably means no one can ever be prosecuted for homicide for causing the unviable delivery of an unborn baby. Whether an unborn baby is a human being is a binary question. So if abortion is a ‘right,’ then it is equally a right to not be prosecuted for a homicide to cause one. Has there been a case in which the ACLU defended a person who hit or pushed a woman and caused her to miscarry and was charged with murder or manslaughter? If they have been asked to defend against that as a bogus charge and have refused, they are contradictory. And the same goes for defending against against wrongful death in a civil suit– according to their position on abortion, there was no death to be ‘wrongful.’

A comment about abortion and being “pro-life”. Anybody who considers himself/herself to be “pro-life” and supports Bush or McSame is a hypocrite.

Straining at the gnat of abortion, and swallowing the camel of the Iraq war, a war totally based on lies, and a war on a country that had not attacked us and was not a threat to us, and a war to bring great profits to companies like Haliburton, Betchel, and Blackwater, at the expense of some 4000+ of our soldiers (and many more who are very seriously injured), as well as probably a million innocent Iraqis, including babies and children.

McSame has indicated he would continue the war.

J says: “Anyone who takes the position that abortion is not homicide is inevitably saying a fetus is not a human being, as homicide, by legal definition, applies only to human beings.”

In this great big world you live in J, there are people who hold different opinions than you. Quite obviously, you have a problem with that. A fetus is a potential human life until is reaches a point of independent viability.

I’m sure that since you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word or God, to be taken literally,(you do, right?) you’ll have to take your argument up with Him:

Exodus 21:22-25:

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

They are speaking of the harm to the woman who is alive.

As it seems you are inviting me to comment on that pasage, I will waver a bit from my general rule of not promulgating doctrine here. First let’s get it in literal modern language:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” [NASB]

And my take:
1) Causing an abortion was subject to legal penalty.
2) It is not totally clear, but the case in question seems to be that premature delivery was a consequence of a struggle that did not directly concern the pregnant woman, unless perhaps she was trying to intervene, as if one of the men was her husband.
3) (as if any of this matters here) These were laws for a militaristic nomadic people, soon to conquer and establish an agrarian society, and they are not applicable beyond their settings; while observant Jews may think otherwise for most Mosaic laws, Chritians require only their own testament. And to NT Christians Jesus made it plain that fanatical obsession with the ‘letter of the law’ reversed it purpose of justice and mercy, such as “eye for eye” limits revenge, which imperfect people seek anyway. And Paul, writing later, strongly discouraged the attempts to “Judasize” the new non-Jewish converts, for which the purpose was to be ‘free to love and serve,’ not to become bondmen to a ceremonial law that is of no value to them.

One other comment about your term “independent viability:” if a pregnant woman is in a state of depression and/or reacting to relational or financial problems, and she goes into labor intending to have the baby, but then when near delivery time she suddenly says “I don’t want that baby– don’t let it be born alive!” Then must her stated will be so carried out? And if the medical people refuse to do that and don’t call someone who will, can they be censured by the licensing boards, and even be sued for violating her ‘right’ to an abortion? [like the pharnacist cases of refusing birht control pills]?

And if that is not the case at normal delivery time, then when does it apply? into the 7th month? the 6th? the 5th?… nevertheless, if the woman does not want her baby to be born alive for any span of pregnancy, is it her right to have the baby out but dead?

J, This is certainly an interesting position to take on the OT.

re: point #1 - no, there is a penalty for harm to the living women, not for causing a miscarriage to an unborn fetus, (though your point about when viability is reached is a good one, and highly debatable.) Many of the Jewish faith do not name a child until it has been living, viable, for three days apart from the mother. In the not too distant past, you saw birth certificates and death certificates that simply said, “Baby girl/boy abc.”

re: point #3 - now if that isn’t a flight of fancy, I don’t know what is.

“such as “eye for eye” limits revenge…”

It says the punishment should fit the crime!! It limited the civil penalty, but left a gray area on whether those who felt an injustice could then take the law further privately.

And what does Jesus message - “Turn the other cheek” do? Limits the revenge actions, by saying the law is the law.

Your whole position of “that does not apply to us “non-Jewish” new covenant people” is selectivity and nonsense.

Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

The rest of your post is mumbo-jumbo absurdity.

“no, there is a penalty for harm to the living women, not for causing a miscarriage to an unborn fetus”

You’re dead wrong on that, because it says “…so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as…” Is a fine not a penalty?

“Your whole position of “that does not apply to us “non-Jewish” new covenant people” is selectivity and nonsense.

No, it is not (though that’s not how I stated it). We have no need to bleed lambs and burn their carcasses on the altar, Jesus said it is not what goes in [non-kosher foods] that corrupt a man, but what comes out [words and deeds], Paul argued against inserting days and seasons and ceremonies…..

It might come as a surprise that I am not very popular when posting on Christian forums either, when I say we have 8 1/2 commandments of the original 10 that apply, only because they are repeated in the NT, that tithing is not an obligation, that “unconditional” support for Israel over its enemies is nonsense, et al. All of these ideas come from trying to shove the OT and its complexities of law in where it doesn’t belong.

J said: “that “unconditional” support for Israel over its enemies is nonsense”

Ah, something we can agree on. However, please do remember that complexities of trying to shove things where they don’t belong seems to lie more with the fundamentalist Christians and the NT, rather than the Jews and the OT. It certainly isn’t the Jews of the OT, and the Ten Commandments who are advocating placing those commandments everywhere the eye should roam. Right?

I’m sure that Jesus would be proud that you’ve narrowed the Ten Commandments down to 8 1/2. Jesus said he had not come to change the law.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Uh-oh, J, sounds like you’re in trouble.

As to the old laws of the Jews, the fine you speak of would be a minor penalty - a misdemeanor. Then we go on, the harm for the injury to the woman - an eye for an eye…

I have a cousin who was hit head-on days before she was due to deliver a baby girl. I personally believe, J, that the drunk driver should have been changed with murder. He was not.

Because your cousin was killed, or the baby (who would also be your cousin)? If it’s the latter, are you saying an ‘unborn’ baby is a person after all?

Regardless, I’m sorry about the crime committed, which in Texas would be “murder without malice,” supposing they still use that terminology.

No, my (2nd) cousin is alive and well. They had to remove certain organs from her body, and it took quite a while before she was “cleared” to conceive again, and she’ll always have residual effects to her own body. My personal feelings wanted the man to be charged with murder for the anguish caused to my cousin, her husband, their family; the accident itself underscored the concept of a potential life - not yet a viable independent life. If the baby had died anytime prior to, or during delivery, it would have been a potential life lost.

Perhaps that sounds harsh. It is my opinion.

J, Exodus 21:22-25 : Are you interpreting this passage to mean she gives birth prematurely and the fetus has suffered no actual harm? If so, it is you that is dead wrong.

There was a fine for causing the premature ejection of a fetus– and we do assume by context it was nonviable. Just causing that was a fine; and the “further injury” was to the woman. You were indeed dead wrong when you said, “there is a penalty for harm to the living women, not for causing a miscarriage to an unborn fetus.” There was a penalty for causing a miscarriage.

And you previously said “I personally believe … the drunk driver should have been charged with murder.” Then you change that to “My personal feelings wanted the man to be charged with murder” when it is proposed that charging him with murder would mean the unborn baby was a person. ‘Believe’ and ‘feel’ are not the same.

My feelings are a direct connection to my beliefs.