Barry, I am sympathetic with the frustration felt by many pastors who try to fully articulate their religious worldviews during the election season while having to censor themselves due to the IRS gag rule. As I have stated before, I believe that the best way to restore unfettered freedom of speech for pastors is to call on Congress to repeal the IRS restrictions on pastors’ speech.
Our law firm does not counsel our church clients to violate the 501(c)(3) rules; we do not have our first contact with them until after they have already been threatened by an IRS letter or a letter from a liberal “watchdog” organization. We represent churches and religious institutions in proceedings initiated by the IRS and, in doing so, raise statutory and constitutional arguments in their defense.
Without getting into privileged attorney-client discussions from the Pierce Creek case, I can say that we thought the court of appeals’ decision provided a blueprint for churches to express their beliefs in a political context through the formation of a separate 501(c)(4) entity. And I can’t say how the Supreme Court would rule in a future case if one gets there (although I doubt one will); it’s always tough to predict, especially without seeing how the law is being applied to the facts of a particular case. The uncertainty of litigation is another reason why a legislative repeal of the IRS gag rule is needed.
In addition, the IRS rules for political speech are different for churches and other religious non-profit organizations than they are for some non-profit organizations, such as labor unions, whose leadership is free to endorse or oppose any political candidate in their official capacity. The rationale for the difference is that religious organizations are subsidized because the contributions they receive are tax-deductible by the donor. But by that explanation, labor unions are just as subsidized because union dues are deductible as an employee expense.
Barry, this is not a conservative or liberal issue – all religious leaders should be able to speak freely about the intersection of faith and government if they desire to do so. Religious leaders of all faiths have a right to speak up for the unborn, the weak, the defenseless, and the unwanted, and they should be able to encourage their congregations to support candidates for office who do the same.
In addition, religious Americans have the same right to voice their opinions and support government actions that are consistent with their beliefs that is enjoyed by other Americans. It is simply offensive to imply that religious believers should just keep their ideas to themselves and let everyone else deal with elections and public policy. The next President and Congress will make countless important decisions on a broad range of issues that will affect every American, and religious leaders should be able to weigh in, if they so choose, on how various candidates will deal with those issues.
posted September 30, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Sekulow is absolutely right: legislation is needed immediately to right this wrong. Establishments of Religion have no business (literally) being “respected” by the Federal Government as tax-exempt corporations, and should be completely removed from the list of 501(c)3 groups.
posted September 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Once again, Mr. Sekulow proves the point that Christian churches worship money more than God, for it is money that is keeping them from “speaking their minds” from their pulpits.
posted September 30, 2008 at 9:35 pm
What part of this paragraph is it that you don’t understand? >
“In addition, the IRS rules for political speech ARE DIFFERENT for churches and other religious non-profit organizations than they are for some non-profit organizations, such as labor unions, whose leadership is free to endorse or oppose any political candidate in their official capacity. The rationale for the difference is that religious organizations are subsidized because the contributions they receive are tax-deductible by the donor. But by that explanation, labor unions are just as subsidized because union dues are deductible as an employee expense”
[emphasis is mine]
HMMMM…the IRS rules are different for RELIGIOUS organizations…they are SINGLED OUT…the ONLY group who is to be MUZZLED…only THEY should lose their right to free speech?… That’s a pretty straightforward textbook example of discrimination
…and furthermore, if the group being discriminated against were anyone other than Christians both of the two previous posters would be very vocally upset about it, I’m sure.
posted September 30, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“…and furthermore, if the group being discriminated against were anyone other than Christians both of the two previous posters would be very vocally upset about it, I’m sure.”
Oh my god…what a stupid statement. Shall we go back and see how many complaints have been lodged under this rule against UU, Buddhist, and other non-Christian groups by conservatives? Heck, a few years ago in Texas there was a lawsuit to withdraw the exempt status of every UU church in the state.
So please, take your “special pleading” crap. It has as much credibility as McCain’s economic plan.
posted September 30, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Actually, Ann, our church gave up the 501(c)3 exemption some time ago. It works out well for us. God has blessed us with not only more than enough money to pay the taxes, but also with more members as we have a truly unbridled ministry. We no longer have to worry about conservative’s spying on our worship services lest we happen to mention a progressive candidate from the pulpit. And the members of our congregation may have lost the tax deduction for their giving, but they have become more active in social justice ministries in our area.
It was a win-win situation, Ann, and I would encourage your church to look into it.
posted October 1, 2008 at 1:03 am
For the record, It is not restricted to just churches but all non-profits. Go read your history books, and the IRS tax code. Jeez. The bottom line is that 501(c)(3) prohibits non-profits. including houses of worship, from endorsing or opposing candidates “either expressly or by implication.”.
The religious right thinks it’s churches should be exempt from taxes if they decides to endorse or oppose a candidate. Heck, I’d love to endorse a candidate and deduct it from my taxes.
Oh, I see, if I am pious, and claim to be a member of the cloth, and endorse a candidate, I should be able to avoid paying taxes on the revenue paid to me by parishioners that I use to take out ads for a candidate, or even verbally endorse the candidate. Am I missing something? They get something I can’t as an individual.
In 1992 the Religious Right took it on the chin with the Church of Pierce Creek decision.
Hmm, sounds fair to me. Get involved in politics, and lose your special tax status.
posted October 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Apologies in advance for the length….trying to speak to what several different people have said…
I don’t think I’ve even heard a UU church (at least not by that name) and wonder how they are a church – if non-Christian… don’t other religions usually call their buildings something else? mosque, temple, etc…
Anyway, what you (ds0490) are claiming is not what I was talking about…you mention conservatives complaining about other groups with different beliefs… I was talking about a government entity becoming the ‘speech police’ for the singular purpose of actively muzzling the free speech rights of a specific group of people. As Jay said, NOT ALL NON-PROFITS ARE BOUND BY THIS RULE. — OH…I get it, you’re saying that it’s okay for groups like Barry Lynn’s liberal group to file complaints (they did) against those who have stood to prove their believe that this IRS rule is unconstitutional, but those with more conservative beliefs (who disagree with your perspective) should just shut up and not make any statements or complaints when they see fit to do so…right? Sounds like you’re wanting the special treatment to me.
Regarding churches giving up tax-exempt status, I suppose that’s each church’s individual decision… There are several good reasons for a church to have tax-exempt status that have been discussed on other blogs here. One other reason I think they should remain so: Jesus said we should give to God what is God’s and to Caesar, what is Caesar’s. I’ve heard it taught that just as the Jews have two calendars, they also had two money systems being used at the time of Jesus’ ministry. To me, what Jesus said means that: as a Christian, I am to pay any taxes due to our government AND my tithes/offerings to God (through the church). I personally do not believe that money I’ve given (in essence) to God (for spreading the gospel, maintaining the ministry and funding ministry outreaches, etc…) should go to the government instead…that’s what everyone’s tax money was for.
One thing that I noticed… as you (dan4christ88) have pointed out yourself, your church is obviously one with a liberal perspective… therefore, I’m thinking your concern was never IRS persecution of your free speech, but conservative groups who disagree with that speech. Since, in every situation I’ve heard about where a church was singled out regarding the content of their speech, the church was portrayed as one with more conservative beliefs…surely we can at least agree that this is (at least) the majority of cases. It’s my understanding that’s exactly the purpose it was designed for & where the law originally came from?…LBJ’s style of heavy-handed 1950′s politics. I also understand he had it pushed through without going the normal channels …to take care of a personal issue he had with one such group. Perhaps Jay could give more details on this aspect of things???
HERE’S MY QUESTION:
Another thing that comes to mind regarding churches without tax-exempt status. I wonder if all those who are mad that churches have it to begin with have thought much about what it would mean if they didn’t???
Look at it this way: An individual pays taxes, therefore, they are a taxpayer. As such, the government/politicians are supposed to be working for them & they have the clout to have a say in how the country is run (including giving funds to the candidate of their choice and/or campaigning actively for them).
If a church pays taxes, then it is also a taxpayer…therefore the government/politicians are supposed to be working for them and they have much more say in how the country is run than they do now. They are then completely able to legally engage in EVERY aspect of campaigning & running the country. Let’s be real here…Those who buy into the twisted media version of the separation of Church & State would not like that very much because it puts the entity of organized churches smack in the middle of government instead of just individual Christian citizens having their say in things.
You see, here’s the thing…I don’t think there’s a lot of churches that currently want to be actively involved in campaigning, etc… They just don’t believe that it’s Constitutional to have their right to free speech stripped away when they’re preaching… To have to compromise what the Word of God says in their sermons to stay within the bounds of an unconstitutional law. It sort of puts the IRS in the position of ‘big brother’ (as Jay said)…or a type of extortionist (to be blunt). “YOU, keep your mouth shut or I’ll make you pay”.
The real issue here is whether or not the IRS should be policing the content of the pastor’s speech. I say ‘NO’…A pastor of a church is still a citizen who has freedom of speech and should be able to preach a message to his congregation and state what the Bible teaches on a subject and then compare it to the voting records/statements of the candidates if HE or SHE believes that’s what God would have them do. In most cases, this will result in one candidate being in a more favorable position at the end of that comparison. True simply because of the fact that if they’re running against each other, there WILL be differences between them and those are more than likely to be in the areas of concern to Christians. I believe it should be so for pastors who are liberal as well as pastors who are conservative in their beliefs.
As I’ve stated before, I personally think the best thing to do at this point is for a pastor to hold an informal meeting for any member who is interested in attending…where they share information amongst themselves as individuals on the records of candidates, issues, etc… Then (in the meantime) work separately on having the law declared unconstitutional.
If it ever is – or not, consider this…why is it that you are against the tax-exempt status of religious organizations ONLY…especially conservative Christian groups? Let’s take Jay’s example of the labor unions…shouldn’t they then have to forfeit their tax-exempt status? …because they fund, endorse and campaign for candidates? Keep in mind that fourth paragraph in Jay’s blog before you answer….
posted October 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Ann provides me with a target-rich environment for responses, so I will limit myself to two or three of the better ones.
“I don’t think I’ve even heard a UU church (at least not by that name) and wonder how they are a church – if non-Christian… don’t other religions usually call their buildings something else? mosque, temple, etc…”
Here we have what is at the cornerstone of this argument. Ann, like many conservatives, believe that only Christian churches (and only conservative Christian churches, if they were to be honest) deserve to be recognized as such by the federal government. Thus we have the instance where a Texas official attempted to deny tax exempt status to Unitarian-Universalist churches in the state.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7303
Fortunately a court smacked this ruling down. If we must suffer tax exemption for religious groups, then ALL religious groups should be included, not just those that the state recognizes as such.
You see, Ann, it really doesn’t matter what YOU think the group should be. It merely matters if they meet the minimal requirements set forward by the IRS.
“One thing that I noticed… as you (dan4christ88) have pointed out yourself, your church is obviously one with a liberal perspective… therefore, I’m thinking your concern was never IRS persecution of your free speech, but conservative groups who disagree with that speech.”
I won’t pretend to speak for the other fellow, but I think you could use a dose of reality here. Even the conservative ADF admits that the IRS investigates more liberal churches than conservative ones. This has been a long standing trend.
“A pastor of a church is still a citizen who has freedom of speech and should be able to preach a message to his congregation and state what the Bible teaches on a subject and then compare it to the voting records/statements of the candidates if HE or SHE believes that’s what God would have them do.”
Amen! On this you and I agree, Ann. If this is what they feel God is calling them to do, then they should do it, and let God take care of the aftermath. They should take God at his word when he promises to provide for the needs of those who do his work.
Surely you believe that God will provide something as simple as money for those brave churches to throw off the restraints of the IRS like Dan’s church did.
Your god is able, isn’t he?
posted October 1, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Ann: “They just don’t believe that it’s Constitutional to have their right to free speech stripped away when they’re preaching… To have to compromise what the Word of God says in their sermons to stay within the bounds of an unconstitutional law. It sort of puts the IRS in the position of ‘big brother’ (as Jay said)…or a type of extortionist (to be blunt). “YOU, keep your mouth shut or I’ll make you pay”.”
This is exactly how our church felt, Ann. But God helped us realize that it was we, not the government, who held the power in this exchange. We had the power to turn our trust totally and completely upon the God who Saves, and to rely upon Him to meet all of our needs.
Yes, Ann, we are what you would probably identify as a liberal congregation. And as we came under the conviction of the Holy Spirit to become more and more involved in community ministry, to speak out on issues of social justice and equity, and to “speak truth to power,” a number of our members felt fear at what the government might do to us. There was fear that the government would fine us or require back taxes if we followed God’s lead.
After much prayer our leadership called the congregation to consider taking the step of renouncing our tax-exempt status. We prayed and fasted for a month to discern God’s will on this, and when we came together there was a wonderful sense of unity, God’s unity, that fell upon us.
Our letter was dated the first day of our fiscal year, and was responded to by the IRS within 30 days. That was three years ago, and we have never regretted it. Yes, we pay taxes now. We pay income tax, property tax, sales tax and all the other taxes and fees that any other business pays in the community. It has helped us better understand the plight of small business as we face the rigors of filing.
But God has blessed us a thousand fold. We have seen an increase in giving. We have seen an increase in attendance. We have seen an incredible deepening in the faith expressed by our members. More people are involved in our community ministries now. We are reaching more people with the love of Jesus than ever before.
All because we trusted God. All because we had faith.
To ds0490…God is truly able, more than you will ever know, to meet the needs of those who are in the center of His will.
posted October 1, 2008 at 2:18 pm
NO, ds0490, I DO NOT believe what you are saying that I believe! I DO believe that ANY religious group is equally eligible to be tax-exempt if that is their choice …regardless of whether I agree with what they say or not [as anyone taking the comment as a whole would see]. So you HAVE pretended to speak for the other fellow – me!
My statement (to dan4christ88) was simply making the point that (based on what he said) it sounded to me like his church’s concern was different than the concerns of the churches I’D HEARD ABOUT.
Personally, I do believe that God will provide the funds that are needed if He has led the church to this path. But I also believe in exercising your faith for things that may seem impossible to our human mind. There are many churches out there who are either very small, or poor, or who do not have the same understanding of God’s word. What about them? Because of things like this, I do not believe that any church should be forced to make the choice between one or the other…UNLESS YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL NON-PROFITS LOSE THEIR T.E. STATUS ALSO …Remember those Labor Unions …what’s law for one, should be law for the other as well…that’s fair…that’s just.
To dan4christ88: I certainly hope you don’t think I was ever saying that your church was wrong for doing as you felt led to do…I’m definitely not! I think what you describe is great and have personally always believed that the church body should’ve been doing more in the way of outreach all throughout the church age …up to & including now. I just refer you to the paragraph above…my concern about what’s right for all churches. Not every church is in a place where it’s within their understanding of applying their faith to do such things.
As with individuals, I believe God deals with churches at whatever place they are in their understanding of Him and what has worked out great for your church will not necessarily work great for another. I’ve found in my personal life that when my family went through a certain difficult situation and sought God for the path we should take, it has often been quite different from the answer for a different family (with different gifts, experiences, calls and personalities) who also sought God’s direction for them in the same dituation. Neither way through it was wrong (for them) …just somewhat different.
posted October 1, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“There are many churches out there who are either very small, or poor, or who do not have the same understanding of God’s word. What about them?”
Does God make his promises conditional on the size of the church? It seems to me, from even a cursory reading of Acts, that God leads those groups who are willing to follow him, regardless of size, location or composition.
Surely if he can pour out a blessing on 11 guys in an attic, he can pour a similar blessing out on your church, can’t he?
What I see it boiling down to is this simple question, Ann. Which do you value more: your money or following God? The Bible teaches that following God is costly, and that one should count the cost before making that choice.
Isn’t this situation simply another time when following God is costly?
Or is there something else at work here…some fear that God may not really be calling your church to endorse candidates from the pulpit? Could it be instead that you and others want some “insurance” just in case God really doesn’t bless your congregation for endorsing a candidate in an election (as apparently he as done for Dan’s church)?
posted October 1, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Ann: “They just don’t believe that it’s Constitutional to have their right to free speech stripped away when they’re preaching… ”
The don’t have their “VConstitutional … right to free speech stripped away…” They give up the right to publicly endorse3 candidates when they choose to “incorporate”. At that point they cease to be individuals with certain individual rights and are now corporations with certain individual rights.
It’s called selling your inheritance for a bowl of stew. Churches have no business being in business to begin with…
posted October 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm
This is the key point:
“UNLESS YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL NON-PROFITS LOSE THEIR T.E. STATUS ALSO …Remember those Labor Unions …what’s law for one, should be law for the other as well…that’s fair…that’s just.”
- Any religious organization is singled out. Why is the law written this way?
posted October 2, 2008 at 12:09 am
You folks want the tax laws for unions and churches to be identical? Fine.
Let the audits and criminal prosecutions begin!
posted October 2, 2008 at 5:36 pm
ds0490: “You folks want the tax laws for unions and churches to be identical? Fine.”
No, it’s not fine. The 1st Amendment does not preclude the “respecting” of a labor union by the government — it specifically lists “an establishment of religion”.
That means different rules for different organizations is perfectly Constitutional. What is unconstitutional is exempting (“respecting”) churches (“establishments of religion”) from their tax liability. Apparently some churches are selling-out their spiritual high ground for a temporal, tax-deductible body.
The Bible says when God “incorporated” as Jesus, He reached into the mouth of the fish (that’s the body of the church to the symbolically-challenged) to pay his taxes. He did not expect a tax exemption from Caesar…
posted October 4, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Mr. Sekulow, I worked for Very Special Arts for a number of years. Very Special Arts advocates for arts opportunities for people with disabilities. Part of its mission is to encourage arts education in the schools. There is research that proves that while many teaching methods are effective with some students, teaching through the arts is effective with all students, able-bodied and disabled.
We saw quite a few state politicians who wanted to take arts education out of schools in order to focus more time on the traditional subjects – the three Rs if you will.
It would have been easy for Very Special Arts to inform our constituency that candidate x wanted to take arts out of the schools, and that they should vote for candidate y to prevent this from happening. But we couldn’t.
Why?
Because we were a 501(c)(3) organization. We were tax exempt. In fact, if we had had to pay taxes on the donations we received, we likely would have gone out of business.
You act as if churches are the only group that is prevented from speaking about political candidates. That is just not so. Every tax exempt group, from your local historical society, art gallery and community theater to your kids’ scout troop, your state branch of Special Olympics and… your church is constrained from speaking about candidates in exchange for their tax exempt status.
I wish that churches and clergy would understand this simple fact. No one is picking on churches. The law applies to tax exempt groups generally.
In other words, I think you all need to get over yourselves!
posted January 14, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I agree with Jay.
posted September 8, 2009 at 9:23 pm
As Dr. Jay stated in a previous post, it is quite interesting that a pastor is allowed to express their views on political issues but is unable to endorse a particular candidate. In essence, what is the difference? This is just another scheme of the liberal left to gag the religious right’s voices because they feel threatened by them, in violation of the First Amendment.