Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking the Internal Revenue Service to court over its failure to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF's equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
...
As many as 1,500 clergy reportedly violated the electioneering restrictions on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, notes FFRF's legal complaint. The complaint also references "blatantly political" full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association."
I think a lot of people don't understand what, exactly, is prohibited under the tax code. Simply put, a religious organization can't endorse a candidate or campaign. They are free to get involved in issue-orientated actions and urge their members to "vote their conscious" all they want. Yes, some do cross the line, and they need to be held accountable. But a lot of what is complained about isn't restricted under the tax code.
I think a lot of people don't understand what, exactly, is prohibited under the tax code. Simply put, a religious organization can't endorse a candidate or campaign. They are free to get involved in issue-orientated actions and urge their members to "vote their conscious" all they want. Yes, some do cross the line, and they need to be held accountable. But a lot of what is complained about isn't restricted under the tax code.
I wonder if that will include those churches that are Democrat-friendly.
It SHOULD apply to any church that endorses a political candidate. If the endorsement for Romney came out during a sermon or if the members were encouraged to vote for Obama in the weekly mailing, the church could be in jeopardy of losing tax exempt status from the IRS. I don't think the IRS much cares which candidate is supported.
There is a very relevant definition involved here, and that definition is "public"
From your link, "Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made 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."
In my opinion, a statement made by a clergyman to his congregation is not a public statement if made within the confines of the church in addressing the congregants. It becomes a public statement only when it is uttered with the intention of being disseminated outside the congregation. I would be very surprised if a court were to rule otherwise, and I think such a court would be in error.
Furthermore, any communications between a citizen and his clergyman is subject to confidentiality, even if multiple faithful are involved in the communications, so what a pastor says to a congregant may be privileged. But this is a secondary and very arguable point.
Yeah this has little to do with so-called Dem or Repub churches, and just churches that are violating the law. This case could easily see the Supreme Court eventually.
There is a very relevant definition involved here, and that definition is "public"
From your link, "Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made 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."
In my opinion, a statement made by a clergyman to his congregation is not a public statement if made within the confines of the church in addressing the congregants. It becomes a public statement only when it is uttered with the intention of being disseminated outside the congregation.
Can you cite any legal precedent for this opinion? Because it seems to contradict what the IRS says about the tax code.
There is a very relevant definition involved here, and that definition is "public"
From your link, "Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made 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."
In my opinion, a statement made by a clergyman to his congregation is not a public statement if made within the confines of the church in addressing the congregants. It becomes a public statement only when it is uttered with the intention of being disseminated outside the congregation. I would be very surprised if a court were to rule otherwise, and I think such a court would be in error.
Furthermore, any communications between a citizen and his clergyman is subject to confidentiality, even if multiple faithful are involved in the communications, so what a pastor says to a congregant may be privileged. But this is a secondary and very arguable point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Can you cite any legal precedent for this opinion? Because it seems to contradict what the IRS says about the tax code.
Lawyer/client privilege is broken if a third party is present who is not bound by the lawyer's confidentiality responsibilities. I don't know if that some theory applies to medical professionals, clergy, or counselors. If it did, the clergy would only be bound by the confidentiality rules when engaged in a private counseling session or in confessional. Speaking to the congregation COULD be ruled a public statement. I don't know if the IRS has ever ruled on the subject or if it has ever turned up in court. Maybe a lawyer will jump in and enlighten us.
It SHOULD apply to any church that endorses a political candidate. If the endorsement for Romney came out during a sermon or if the members were encouraged to vote for Obama in the weekly mailing, the church could be in jeopardy of losing tax exempt status from the IRS. I don't think the IRS much cares which candidate is supported.
I personally would not endorse a candidate during a sermon. It's just not appropriate. But the reason I ask is because the Democrat party has a history of campaigning in the black church.
Shows how the government can put its hands in the offering plate and take God`s money out
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
