I agree. You can’t tell whether a church has violated the law you like so much without reviewing the sermon. Which is one of the reasons the law should not be on the books. What is most unnerving is the reaction of supporters of this law to efforts to “legalize” the free speech of pastors as being unconstitutional! If that isn’t turning the world upside down, I don’t know what is.
In my opinion, the Johnson law that we want repealed is what is unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and exercise of religion. What is beyond my imagination is why it wasn’t challenged a half a century ago.

I thought I just posted this but I guess it got lost (here we go again!)
I agree. You can’t tell whether a church has violated the law you like so much without reviewing the sermon. Which is one of the reasons the law should not be on the books. What is most unnerving is the reaction of supporters of this law to efforts
to “legalize” the free speech of pastors as being unconstitutional! If that isn’t turning the world upside down, I don’t know what is.
In my opinion, the Johnson law that we want repealed is what is unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and exercise of religion. What is beyond my imagination is why it wasn’t challenged a half a century ago.

Once again, it appears that Christians worship money more than God. These churches are worried that they might lose their tax exempt status if they speak what they believe that God has put in their hearts. However, instead of trusting their God to provide the money needed so they can do what He is supposedly calling them to do, they appeal to human government to change the laws.
So much for all that talk about faith in God. It’s secular money where these pastors and their followers are placing their faith…not God.

Actually, this provision of the tax law was challenged over 15 years ago by a small church in upstate New York which lost its tax exemption because it took out a $44,000 ad in USA Today telling people not to vote for Bill Clinton because he was a “sinner”. The church lost in district court, lost on appeal to the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia, and then didn’t even bother taking it to the Supreme Court. The law is pretty clear that you can condition the receipt of the incredibly value “privilege” of a tax exemption on conditions like no partisan electioneering.

The problem here is that we have no damn business giving churches tax exemptions, paying the salaries of chaplains from public funds, or making contributions of federal dollars to religious institutions, period. If we cut that off, this whole issue of free speech for pastors would be moot.
And now our presidential candidates have to pass muster at a suburban, feel-good Evangelical Christian church, which is both unbiblical and unconstitutional. It is no accident that the religious affiliation represented by a majority of our past Presidents (Unitarian/Universalist) is not a Trinitarian Christian denomination at all.
And it also no accident that this election season many candidates are not going to put the word Republican on their ads, signs, and posters. Instead they will use the nebulous G.O.P. (Grand Old Party) with the hope that the majority of independent voters are too blissfully ignorant to know the difference…

“Instead they will use the nebulous G.O.P. (Grand Old Party) with the hope that the majority of independent voters are too blissfully ignorant to know the difference…”
Or they are doing it in hopes that the majority of their evangelical followers will see it as G.O.D. and take it as a sign of who they should vote for.

I would just like to reiterate a point that one of the commenters made: There is no law against endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. All you have to do is give up your tax exemption. Doesn’t the Bible say give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s? If you want to endorse a candidate so badly, just do it! Has it really become a money issue? Shame! (And I actually think that politics should stay out of church. This is not the same as saying the ISSUES should be taken out of church, but the politics.)
And to quote the blog post:
“I find it hard for anyone to be “pro life” about fetuses, but not oppose genocide, the death penalty, and a health care system which is stacked against the lives of the poor, but we’ll tackle that some other time.”
I cannot wait for this discussion!! I am an evangelical, pro-life moderate.. and this means against genocide, against the death penalty, etc. And I don’t know why both sides of the aisle want to pick and choose on which issues they are “pro-life.”

Endorsement of a politician by a church violates a tax statute. It has nothing to do with Free Speech, nor is it a law. It only states that if a religious leader, whose organization claims 501c3 status, endorses a candidate they lose the 501c3 status, and with it some tax exemptions.
The church stays open, and the leader can preach, but the organization can no longer claim non-profit exemptions. So if a leader wants to endorse a candidate, they know they will lose exempt status. The choice is the leader’s to make. On the surface the rule seems arcane, but it is done to prevent religious groups from steering elections, using the pulpit.

“The choice is the leader’s to make.”
EXACTLY! And if the leader or the congregation feel strongly that God is calling them to speak out about a certain candidate using the church’s pulpit, all they need to do is renounce their exempt status in a letter to the IRS and go for it.
Face it, if they believe God is calling them to do this, then they should trust God to provide the funding they need to make it happen. The problem is that many of these whining pastors KNOW that it isn’t about God, it’s about the GOP and power, two things that have nothing to do with God. They know that God is not behind this, otherwise they wouldn’t be whining for a change in laws.

Todd: “And I don’t know why both sides of the aisle want to pick and choose on which issues they are “pro-life.”
That has been the norm ever since Christianity split off from Judaism as a separate faith. We have seen schism after schism as different people decided to emphasize one part of the doctrine over another, or as they got tired of the central church controlling some aspect of their local congregation.
Picking and choosing from the Bible is just human nature. People reject the portions that convict them of their own “sin” and readily grasp on to the portions that they can use to convict the other fellow. It’s about power and control, Todd.
Always has been…always will be.

This may be off the topic a bit but I recently read a good analogy to the “Picking and Choosing” dilemma. Basically it said when person A wanted to convince person B of something being true, person A would distort the meaning behind certain important definitions until person B agreed with her.
Yes it’s just human nature to believe something once it seems comfortable to, but there just seems to be so much importance these days on identifying which position you take and identifying yourself as clearly pro-something or anti-something else. I think the confusion of trying to turn everything into a gray area issue really takes away from the quality and debatability of the intent.

“(I find it hard for anyone to be “pro life” about fetuses, but not oppose genocide, the death penalty, and a health care system which is stacked against the lives of the poor, but we’ll tackle that some other time.)”
Mr. Lynn this is such a bogus argument. You make the assumption that ALL pro-lifers are OK with genocide, the death penalty, and the health care system. Straw man if I ever saw one, and you set it up so you could knock it down. Also you seem to believe these are all equivalents….that killing the most weak and defenseless in our society (the unborn child) is as bad as the death penalty for a convicted murderer or neglecting the poor’s need for health care. In practical terms, at least the murderer HAD a life, and in the case of the poor, their situation simply cannot be compared to an infant whose life is snuffed out before he ever takes his first breath.

Oops another person in denial about the uncommonality between the Religious Right and the Left. Okay so there may be some who are pro-life on the abortion issue and just as readily would condemn the taking of life of any violent crime offenders. Probably. It seems to be all about morals doesn’t it? Killing is wrong period. Life is precious. Wouldn’t it be great if we were all moralists? But there is a certain consensus based on widely agreed upon principles and concepts. A Christian uses his or her support of scripture to declare abortion is wrong but the government has the right to take the life of a criminal. Don’t get all moralistic and deny that when we talk specifically of the taking or saving of a life.

“Also you seem to believe these are all equivalents….that killing the most weak and defenseless in our society (the unborn child) is as bad as the death penalty for a convicted murderer or neglecting the poor’s need for health care. In practical terms, at least the murderer HAD a life, and in the case of the poor, their situation simply cannot be compared to an infant whose life is snuffed out before he ever takes his first breath.”
But then there are those who the state has executed who were actually innocent. What then, Noodle Beach? Who do we punish for the execution of the innocent adult?
And while we are at it, let’s bring up the case of Sun Hudson, the infant who was murdered by a Houston hospital in accordance with a law signed by then Governor George W. Bush. This law, supported by Texas Right to Life, gives hospitals the right to kill patients like this simply because they are deemed to be “hopeless cases.”
Where were the pro-lifers when Sun Hudson and his mother were fighting the efforts of a hospital to take his young life?
Oh wait…Sun had the misfortune to be born black, and the double misfortune to be born to a woman living in poverty. Too bad for him.

Please, may all of us remember that nearly ALL the published rhetoric found so repugnant to us secularists comes from the Evangelical LEADERSHIP! which only purports to represent the will of their congregations/followers! It is their leadership that has become so grossly POLITICAL through the conspiracy generally founded by the so-called “Conservative” Movement. And, as we all know, the entire movement has its home base within the modern Republican Party. The Church membership is more naturally disposed to simply attend church to worship as their historical Faith has dictated over many long years of practice. The invasion of American Democracy by the “Faith Based” Americans is a Fact borne out through America’s history and is simply another ploy to thwart Progressives, and to maintain their “Holy” Status Quo.
Inclusion of Religion in any official U.S. Government working should be resisted. “Faith” should present itself ONLY in the Consciences of the individual Americans who have chosen to involve themselves INDIVIDUALLY in American Governance.
Brick

I have always wanted to know about the Rev.Barry Lynn if he has ever pastored a church, quoted scripture, preached sermons concerning the new birth or ever stated publically his beliefs concerning Christianity. I do not write this sarcastically or with any derogatory motive. I really would like to know why a man who is a Reverend never indicates his faith without scriptural reference or by sermon or doctrinal statement. This has always puzzled me.

I understand that church leaders cannot endorse candidates or else tax exempt status will be lost, but what is the rationale behind this? One of the candidates will win. Either one will be working for the government. So what is the big deal?
If you say the hypothetical posited by Dr. Jay is in fact acceptable, then what is the difference between expressing one’s values linked to a particular candidate and openly endorsing the candidate? In the end, both contribute towards the same goal. Don’t get me wrong. I am not asking for the right to express one’s values to be quashed. It’s just that one is covert endorsement and the other is overt.