“Barry, I know about the Pierce Creek case – we litigated it. That’s why a legislative repeal of the burdensome IRS provisions is needed to restore unbridled free speech to religious leaders of all faiths.”
Incorrect, Mr. Sekulow. All that is needed to restore “unbridled free speech” is for the churches to remove the bridle they willingly took up. Nobody imposes tax exemption on churches. It is something that they accept willingly when they file their articles of incorporation as a 501(c)3 organization.
No legislative solution needed here. All that is needed is for churches to have the courage of their convictions and tell the IRS, “no, thanks” to the tax exemption.

Sorry you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Since when did it become a “given” that pastors must surrender First Amendment rights in order for their church to remian tax exempt? ds0490 and SoCaly write with so much “authority,” but can’t cite any authority to back up their assertion that a church cannot be tax exempt if its pastor merely utters the name of a candidate for office. “The IRS said so” is not sufficient.
What if the IRS inserted a provision that said a family must surrender its Fourth Amendment rights in order to claim a child tax credit? Would ds0490 and SoCaly, 54 years from now, when parents’ groups got together to secure their Fourth Amendment rights, argue that they “could’t have their cake and eat it too?” That getting the door kicked in by tax agents is the “bridle” they must bear, that if they have the “courage of their convictions” as parents, they must give up those rights? Absurd? Yes.

Since when did it become a “given” that pastors must surrender First Amendment rights in order for their church to remian tax exempt? ds0490 and SoCaly write with so much “authority,” but can’t cite any authority to back up their assertion that a church cannot be tax exempt if its pastor merely utters the name of a candidate for office. “The IRS said so” is not sufficient.
What if the IRS inserted a provision that said a family must surrender its Fourth Amendment rights in order to claim a child tax credit? Would ds0490 and SoCaly, 54 years from now, when parents’ groups got together to secure their Fourth Amendment rights, argue that they “could’t have their cake and eat it too?” That getting the door kicked in by tax agents is the “bridle” they must bear, that if they have the “courage of their convictions” as parents, they must give up those rights? Absurd? Yes.

The complete fact of the matter is this. A 501 c3 religious tax exemption is not a right. It is something applied for and possibly granted. When a church applies for a 501 c3 status they go into it knowing what the rules are. Therefore, either accept the rules of that for which you are applying or do not have it. If you cannot agree to the rules of a 501c3 then you shall not have the exemption.
IRS, please do your duty, uphold the law, and if these churches preach politics from the pulpit, PLEASE revoke their tax exempt status immediately!

“”The IRS said so” is not sufficient.”
Actually, it is quite sufficient. Where can you cite for me from the Bible a mandate that the church not pay taxes to the government? Where can you cite for me from the Bible an example of the church petitioning the government instead of God for assistance?
Our government has set up rules for 501(c)3 organizations. Churches have the freedom to play by those rules or not. If they choose to play by the rules, they are not censored. They voluntarily sell their free speech right in exchange for money…not having to pay taxes.
Chet, if the churches really had courage about their convictions and faith in the God they worship, they would simply tell the IRS to remove them from the 501(c)3 status and go about preaching what they wanted. If God approved of it, certainly he would send money their way. If the money didn’t show up, maybe the church would realize that they were not doing what God wanted them to do.
And that may well be the crux of the matter, Chet. All of these churches saying that they feel “led of God” to speak from the pulpit about candidates…are they really being led of God? Or are they being led by their own willfulness?

“What if the IRS inserted a provision that said a family must surrender its Fourth Amendment rights in order to claim a child tax credit?”
Then I would consider the cost and either submit in exchange for the credit or not take it.
Chet, your argument is stupid on its face. Show me in the Constitution where it says that I cannot voluntarily waive one of the rights guaranteed to me. Show me in the same document where it says that a church cannot voluntarily waive one of the rights given to it.
It is YOUR CHURCH’S CHOICE to file as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization. The government does not force you to do it. If you and your church do not like the rules, be Nancy Reagan and JUST SAY NO!
But please, quit whining to the rest of us about how poorly you are being treated by the government when you and your congregation are too da**ed lazy to do anything about it yourself.
I believe the answer here, Chet, is personal responsibility.

Sekulow is right this time — allowing pastors to support social positions but not the candidates whose platforms emphasize them is ridiculous. The only answer to this dilemma is to repeal the 501(c)3 requirements –by removing churches from the list. Giving churches tax-exempt status is clearly unconstitutional anyway — it is “respecting an establishment of religion”.

First, the Constitution was never intended to prohibit the government from providing benefits and support to churches, as long as it was done to All churches, it simply prohibits the sanctioning of a /PARTICULAR/ church as the national church. Secondly, at the time of the framping, the basic tax struture was very different, The free donation of money to any organization, including what we now call tax exempt organizations, such as churches, was never taxed, wheter it be a political organization or a church, or an prphanage (just for a few examples). And even after we did begin to tax under the newer, heavier method of taxing, the examption of these groups was not intended to limit their ability to speak in an educational, or leadership role to ANY subject.
Let us not forget the wise words by one of our founding fathers, “Anyone who gives up a little freedom, for a little security, will loose both and gain neither.” We have done this as a nation over and over. And I am glad to see some attempts to regain our freedoms. Even if I do not agree with some of you, I respect and would gladly stand and fight for your rights to have and express those opinions. That is an important cornerstone of our country.

“Let us not forget the wise words by one of our founding fathers, “Anyone who gives up a little freedom, for a little security, will loose both and gain neither.”
A very good point. I wish the churches that are complaining about the tax code would apply this principle to their own situation. They have given up their “freedom” in return for not paying taxes.
They chose money over freedom. Their loss.

I would love to know if the ADL supports allowing all 501(c)(3) organizations to have the ability to endorse candidates. It seems inconsistent to me to argue that churches are “muzzled” when in fact all nonprofits are subject to this restriction. Thus, are all nonprofits muzzled? Of course, if the nonpartisan restrictions for tax exempt organizations were removed, that would render all campaign finance laws meaningless, because all campaign money could be moved in unlimited quantities through nonprofits, including churches. Seems like something we may want to avoid.

Lost Left Coaster, I believe you mean “ADF” instead of “ADL,” but your main point is one that I was also just about to make, regarding the Religious Right’s push to “restore” freedom only for houses of worship and religious groups and not all non-profits.

To be fair, the legislation that Jay Sekulow linked to would lift the restriction from all 501(c)(3) organizations, not just religious ones. That’s fine with me from a church-state standpoint — they’re not seeking “special rights” for churches. I still think it’s a mistake, though, for the reason that Lost Left Coaster brings up.

Do the members get excommunicaed if they don’t vote like they are ordered to?

Or are they just too stupid to be able to make their own choices and use their own common sense?

I strongly support H.R. 2275, a bill sponsored by Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.) designed to “restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment” as well. Why should the IRS have the capacity of being the “speech police” in direct violation of the 1st Amendment? This regulation is absurd and pairs perfectly with the left’s introduction and reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine to silence the right.